RE: Some thoughts on voting and bots
Usually I agree with most you say and write - I certainly do NOT agree with 90% (pre booster time) of listed on the trending really create value. We could then probably start a different discussion to define what is value :-)?
Also the soon-to-start war is as far as I understand not about the concept of vote buying which I personally see as more transparent and honest versus the behind the curtain circle jerk agreements in place - but that is life, relationships count which is not bad per se - it is just reality. It happens everywhere not only on steemit or online - no whining on it.
Just wanted to outline my thinking - which will not change anything. We need to accept how it is or work on improving it the way the individual thinks by themselves. Some suggestions to change with a new HF I have seen already yesterday on the Roadmap 2018 posts which might help Steemit on a long-termed basis (kudos to @ats-david and @jesta) like:
Source suggestions by @ats-david below:
Change the voting algorithm from full linear to anything but full linear. This has been an abject failure in practice and ought to be rolled back. Then we can discuss a better alternative that is neither n2 nor n.
Restore the 40-vote target.
Remove the STEEM Power delegation function. It not only reduces user demand for STEEM on the open markets, but it has also created another avenue for widespread mismanagement and abuse/exploitation of the collective and limited reward pool.
Reintroduce stronger bandwidth limitations. The amount of spam on the network via posts, comments, and wallet transfers/memos from new accounts is very high and is greatly inflating the daily "transaction" numbers for the blockchain. This is "bloat" that can be easily managed. Those who wish to spam can spend money on STEEM, if they so choose.
Consider reintroducing the four-post reward limits. This has no impact on the number of posts that one may publish in a given day. It only affects the total number of rewards that one user can receive from the limited collective reward pool.
Source last 2 by @jesta:
https://steemit.com/roadmap2018/@steemitblog/steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested#@jesta/re-steemitblog-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested-20171116t191410456z
Beneficiaries Payouts: Currently beneficiary rewards only pay out in SP. These rewards should pay out in whatever method the author of the post chooses (50/50 SBD/SP or 100% SP).
User/platform configurable rewards distribution: The hardcoded 75%/25% Author/Curators split is something I'd like to see customizable. This ratio should be configurable within the comment_options operation and support between 0/100 and 100/0 ratios. Each Steem powered website could either set this ratio at the platform level or surface the choice to the end user via the interface. Different types of content deserve different types of rewards and by allowing this option to be configurable, it opens Steem up to different opportunities.
I think it's totally OK that we don't fully agree on anything :-)
Question: how would any of these suggestions you've just listed improve the visibility of a brandnew user? I thought we were talking about a minnow problem, but voting algorithm, post limits or payout shares are not really effecting someone who has a reputation of 25+ and wants to grow.
Instead of trying to rearrange the rewards distribution, we probably should rather think about a bigger picture: how to make time spent on steemit valuable?
Sorry, the suggestions I listed are top ones to make Steemit a fairer platform not necessarily improve visibility of brand new users.
My entire comment was more related to your point of creating value which could be discussed for months. I think this is based on the perception of users what they see as a value. We only talk about what creates Value for Steemit, usually what users see as value. This does not necessarily mean it creates any Value for Steem as a currency, different things.
Before I start to elaborate for hours why I do not see value in particular posts let us maybe agree that it requires some open discussion, nowadays we have black or white thinking mainly and wars are never good, flagging of scammer shit is NEEDED, therefore I fully support some Flags when it helps the community.
I remember when I was a young user here and tried to moderate between some powerful whales to stop flagging each other - was a shit idea. I learned that you should rather be silent here before they flag the shit out of you, only sometimes I come to comment my thoughts. Back to work now - need to create value for my customers now.
YES. Agreed :-)