Steemit.com is a highly innovative block-chain SNS platform.
However, there is still a shortage because it is still an unfinished beta version.
This shortage is a complaint of early adopters, and is often a factor making users to leave steemit.com.
Is there any way to prevent users from leaving steemit.com?
To do that, you have to figure out the problem.
The steemit.com user group is divided into four groups.
The first is those who have been involved with steemit.com since its launch and have a large stake in steemit.com. These are called whales.
The second is those who see the possibility of steemit.com, buy steem on the market, collect steem through writing, power it up, and have a lot of steem power. They are called dolphins.
The third is that people who have heard steem story somewhere and joined but have not got much steem power, so they can hardly get the voting reward even if they make a vote.
The fourth is investors who have invested to make money and have no interest in complicated rules of steem. They hold steem as flowing steem, not steem power.
As you can see, the current steemit.com has a structure that is not completely satisfactory for any of the four classes.
I think the first problem with steem is that people who have steem power can not predict how effective their votings will be. Perhaps all steemPower owners want to know how much they reward the author once they have done their voting. But currently there is not a definite way to calculate.
The second problem is that people who are new to steemit.com think that writing compensation will be given in proportion to the number of votings. And this is a fairly reasonable idea. However, steemit.com's writing compensation is not necessarily proportional to the number of recommendations. So, to understand this, you have to explain it using very difficult mathematics, and most of the time they don't understand and you also don't fully understand, even if you explain it. So, most of the early users say, "This system is like a #%$#." And then he leaves steemit.com and does not come back.
The situation is that the price of steem does not rise compared to the other coins, and naturally traders are also dissatisfied or do not return.
I think the weak points of steem are as follows. The high rate of inflation was not a problem, and the high share of whales was not a problem either. The problem is that voting rights are not given in direct proportion to the steem power and one voting does not exercise the same rewards. The voting of a person with a lot of steem power provides more reward. This is intuitively unreasonable, irrespective of what the truth is. It is intuitively understandable that a person with a lot of steem power has more voting rights, but it is hard to understand that while doing the same act of voting, the voting with more steem power is more valuable. I recognize the economic power of people who have a lot of steem power, but it is hard to understand that they have a better view of the article because they have more steem power. Wisdom can not be proportional to the person's economic power. Regardless of whether the steem power is high or low, one recommendation, voting should have the same value. And voting rights should be exercised differently depending on the amount of steem. This is because the voting and voting rights are very important to share the profits from the steem block chain. It is natural that whales have more stakes in steem than dolphins and therefore have more profit sharing rights.
In order to solve the problem of steem above, I propose the following.
"Let's give voting right on writing in proportion to steem power"
The steem power of a certain person divided by steem_per_m vests (for now 479.248 STEEM) corresponds to the maximum possible number of voting per day. At this time, if the owner of a steem power of 479.248 or less based on the current time of writing, by discarding the decimal point, it can induce the participant to engage in writing actively by reserving the right of voting until the steem power reaches 479.248 steem power. also it is possible to block the activity of the steem bots which can be pointless.
This will increase demand for steem power.
For example, a user with 500 steem power can vote one time a day and a user with 400 steem power can not vote because the right to recommend is still reserved. If you have 10,000 steem power, you will be able to make 20 recommnedations a day.
At present, total_vesting_shares is 439,294 M VESTS, so the voting daily total is 439,294.
"Let's pay writing reward in direct proportion to recommendation frequency"
This is a very important part. Most of the current steemit.com issues are that the compensation is felt unfair. And this part is hard to explain. In the image above, @klye received 237 recommendations and @barrydupton received 146 recommendations. Who needs more reward? Of course, most people answer @klye, but at steemit.com @barrydupton received more reward. And this happens often at steemit.com. Reward at steemit.com is an evaluation of the value of the article. but a recommendation by @ned alone is more rewarding than a recommendation by 100 people with a steam power of less than 1,000. Who can agree on this? Although @ned has more stake, we can admit that he has more voting rights, but it is arrogant that his recommendation itself is more valuable than the other's recommendation.
Currently, the total_reward_fund_steem of steemit.com is 50,149,539 STEEM. Of these, 37,612 STEEMs, 75% of which are authors' reward. Therefore, assuming that all votings are being exercised, one voting will have a value of 0.0856 steem. There are a number of recommendations that do not actually exercise the voting rights. Thus, exercising a voting right once is worth much more than this. In addition, 10% of the reward will be received by the recommender, so the recommender will be rewarded with 0.0114 STEEM by recommending once.
What can we get if we do this?
(1) Recommenders will be able to make recommendations to articles that they think are good. Now, I would recommend it to other people's favorite article rather than my favorite article. This is because you can get more voting rewards. This will naturally make it easier for new authors to enter the market. Because there is no reason to recommend to famous authors.
(2) Demand for steem power will increase.
(3) Users will feel that the rewards of steemit.com are fair, which will contribute to increased membership.
(4) Writers do not need to worry about getting a whale or dolphin's liking.
If you have only the voting rights, you will have the same value of someone's recommendation. Naturally, articles from various fields and perspectives come up.
(5) steemit.com is easy to understand and simple to operate from the user's point of view. And simplicity makes it possible for anyone to explain everything to others.
I may have errors in my thoughts, and if there are any mistakes, I would be grateful if you commented on it.