RE: Changing the Curation system - Might be wise, but we need to be careful!
Dear @unbiasedwriter
Thank you for sharing this post with me. Resteemed and upvoted.
I've read and replied to post published by @steemingcurators and I disagree with his suggestion, simply because it's not well thought through and it's completely one-sided (if person coming with proposal is saying that he/she doesn't see ANY negatives of such a proposal, then usually it isn't good sign).
Truth is, that all changes should be very well thought through. We need to prepare ourselfs for consequences coming from reversing changes and moving back to the way things were. Assuming, that previous problems will not come back is simply to optimistic.
He even wrote in one comments:
Why keep running a version that has proven to not be sustainable? We went from 8$ to 9 cents in the 2+past years.
However, it's clear to me that STEEM has lost it's value mostly because of BIDBOTS and if non-linear curve would not be introduced, then currently bidbots would COMPLETELY rule this platform.
Pretending that this problem doesn't exist is simply wrong.
Truth is, that if old non-linear curation reward system would be brought back, then amount of new BIDBOTS will flourish like crazy. That is simple as that. Hoping that it would not happen ... is not a solution.
My suggestion is as follow:
SOLUTION 1)
Why not to consider creating "hybryd" between old ways and current ways of calculating rewards.
Non-linear curve turned out to be efficient way of discouraging people to use bidbots. At the same time it's an serious issue for curators.
Perhaps the best solution would be to suggest, that author rewards will be calculated based on non-linear curve (which will still put off authors from buying upvotes), however curation rewards would be calculated old way (non-linear curve).
I wonder what do you think about such a "hybryd"?
SOLUTION 2)
Other solution, which I've been thinking of for some time: being able to reward others SHOULD NOT BE OUR RIGHT - it should be a PRIVILLAGE.
I strongly believe, that every curator should receive curation rewards from his upvotes. However, authors receiving an upvote should only get rewarded if such a user is part of "CURATORS PROGRAM".
What would that mean?
As default every user would be receiving curation rewards.
Also, every user would initially be part of "curators program", which would allow him/her to reward authors by upvoting their content. Those who would be abusing platform (bidbots, self-upvoters, comment-upvoters -> basically users trying to milk blockchain) could be removed from "curators program". If that would happen, then their upvotes would still bring them curation rewards , however their upvotes would not be bringing ANY revenue to authors.
Major problem Steem and Hive blockchain are facing is the fact, that there is nothing anyone can do with upvote abusers. There are no tools allowing to stop abusers from milking steem. There are also no tools protecting us from BIDBITS raising again.
BOTTOM LINE
If we can find ways of AVOIDING new wave of bidbots raising - then I also wouldn't see a problem with reversing previous hard fork and moving back into old curating system. Till then, I strongly believe we should avoid going that road ...
Yours, Piotr
You need to understand the difference between a discussion post (which was intended that you guys would fill in the blanks. Calling people naive with your denigrating tone of voice, just because they want to change and create awareness is yeah, respectless.
Great you added value in this comment Piotr! Thanks for joining the discussions!
KR Tom
Dear @steemingcurators
Please allow me to quote my sentence, in which I did not call anyone to be naive:
"It's a bit to optimistic and naive to assume, that previous problem will not come back. It surely will."
There is major difference between calling anyone naive, and saying that some assumption is to optimistic and naive.
At least - I would like you to know, that I see huge difference and my intentions were never to call you (as a person) to be naive.
Cheers, Piotr
It's me again @steemingcurators
Just 2 more things:
a) did you check any of my suggestions above? I would like to know what do you think.
b)
Just wanted to underline, that this comment had no negative implication. From my point of view, it was simple question which would allow me to figure out if you're quite new to this platform (since your account is pretty new) or if you were here before (in times of bidbots).
Thank you again for your mature response.
Yours, Piotr
Hola #crypto.piotr
Estoy apenas a solo días de haberme sumado a Steemit, Gracias de antemano por su Bienvenida.
Es Interesante el tema publicado cómo tal, Ya que Soy muy nuevo en el sistema, a la vez que desconozco dicho sistema de recompensas del anterior modo al actual.
Pero Igualmente es grato ser privilegiado de dichos cambios, y a la vez conocer la legitimidad de expresión de los votos y recompensas. Los Cambios para Mí en Lo Personal Siempre son y serán Buenos con la finalidad de corregir Legalidad y Honestidad..
Mis Felicitaciones de antemano y Estaré al tanto de dichas publicaciones futuras, Mucha Suerte y Gracias Nuevamente. Atte. Barrios I.
I am not really so sure about the bidbot stuff. I have actually bought votes myself in the past, and the main motivation for stopping was when the big whales started to downvote your post for the exact amount you got an upvote. As a result, you just spent Steem without winning anything at all.
In other words, it wasn't the actual system behind the curation system that made bidbots less attractive, but the fact that it was made impossible because of the downvotes (which I now really support and I am glad they behaved that way). In other words, if you have some people paying attention to eventual bid bots and downvoting, then I think much of the problem can be fixed, no matter what sort of curation system we have.
In other words, my main problem is still the fact that a flat curation system will make people ignorant about what they are voting for, and it will make curators less interested in finding the great content.
I believe a system where you can remove people from rewards is hard to keep running because it means there is some sort of stronger censorship, which again will lead to much discussion. Of course, on other platforms, this would work, but seeing that Steem is supposed to be a decentralized platform, this is hard to keep running.
When it comes to a hybrid system, who knows... it will require lots of thinking, planning, and discussion, before we can actually make changes. But, I believe this discussion is a good part in that... and lack of interest means that people don't really care, which again means that maybe we shouldn't touch it at all at the moment!
I will write an article about the curation rewards, making this platform very interesting for investors within a few days... no matter if the curation rewards are linear or not, they are way better than the ROI you get on almost any other platform, so we for sure have something to be happy about, no matter what!