Will Steem succeed or commit suicide?

in steemit •  11 months ago

In the last weeks there a lot of debate here on Steemit if authors should be allowed to vote on their own posts, and how much, and other debates how to attract more people from Facebook and Reddit to post here. I was inspired by all these posts and especially by a post of @bless "Creating a more Secure, Fair, and Decentralized Steemit #1". You can see in the image below (that's imported from that article) that nothing has changed from last year. The minnows have a very small share of the Steem pie.


 So I thought a lot to understand the problems and what can be done to fix them. And I believe I have found a solution that will benefit EVERYONE

First let's understand the problems

When a new user visits steem.com and starts posting content. Even if it's the best article, and in other mediums would get to the front page  - here it can go unnoticed, collecting dust - maximum he will get like $0.72 if he's lucky. From the other side he sees the trending pages a vacation post of a whale collecting $400 or "What coffee did I drink today". Other not important posts get similar rewards. And that minnow might try hard to build a following, but even if you have 1000 followers if you don't have a friend a whale - forget it. You can make $25 but that's it. Even if your post makes it to @curie that post can make a lot but the rewards of the next one will be back to "norm". He can work out for years and still not get what he would get in any newspaper.

What's the problem?

There is a mix of power over here

It doesn't make sense (to me)

  • That the whales should decide who's a good writer. In NY Times or CNN the stakeholders don't have a say on    the authors.
  • That the whales get curation rewards for upvoting more than all upvoters before them. They didn't do anything that they should deserve that reward.
  • That bots get rewarded and decide what content should appear in the trending page. They don't read the content and don't put any work. 
  • That the whales decide what content should not be seen. Because they have the wealth doesn't mean they understand to media.

So what's the solution?

Steemit needs a fundamental remaking of it's platform.

There should be 3 branches:

The Author branch

The Curation branch

And The Steem Power branch.


Here is how it should work:

The Author branch is where authors write articles. After the author publishes his article - it gets transferred to the Curation department. That means it appears in the "NEW" column. Publisher doesn't have an upvote right for his post. 

Arriving to the curation department it gets awaited by the Curation team. Who is that? You and me, and anyone else. They inspect the package - I'm sorry the post - and decide if it's valued stuff. If it is, they tag their upvote. A post with more upvotes goes up to the next floor - the "hot" column. A post with even more votes flies up via elevator to the 3rd floor. 

Each curation member has his Curation Reputation Tag. The more upvotes the posts - he curated first or from the first - gets - plus his continuous curation - the more his reputation grows. A member with a higher reputation is like a lot voters with lower reputations. 

Same is with the authors. Each author has an Author Reputation Tag. The more curation votes he gets - or fewer votes from high curation reputation members - the more his author reputation ranks. Posts from high reputation authors will automatically show in the "Top Authors" column.

The Steem Power Branch

Steem Power should be seen as Steem shares that will pay off at the rewards section. Stay tuned.


Rewards

Rewards should be splitted like this:

Author rewards - 50-65% of the post payout. It starts by 50% and the higher the author reputation rank the higher the %. Author with the highest reputation get 65%

Curation rewards - 14-29% of the post payout. The higher the author reputation the lower the rewards as above. Curation rewards decrease because there is less work curating a high reputation post, and to incentivise curation of new writers. The first curators get more than the later ones.

Steem Power rewards - 20% of all post payouts should be shared by all SP holder according to their SP ownership. People with more SP get more.

Referral rewards - 1% of post payout should go to the referrer of the author to Steemit. If there is no referrer the 1% should go towards marketing.

 

New rules

The rule of upvoting before 30 minutes should be nulled.

Upvoting button should be removed from the title link pages and will only be shown when viewing the article.

Since Steemit curation rewards are to reward curators for their job to find great post - no curation bots should be allowed. They don't add anything to the platform and are just reducing the reward pool that incentives for good work.

Downvoting should be made by at least 3 curators with a minimum curation reputation.

What will we gain? 

That everybody has an equal opportunity to author and curate, and make money doing so. 

Rewards will be paid to whoever deserves it - to the hard workers.

Whales (and minnows) will get their share according to their SP without upvoting. It's not their job.

There will be more quality content on the top pages.

This will attract new talent and get Steem on the map. And hopefully raising the price of Steem to the happiness of all of us. Else if nothing changes than we will have to do what @dan did.

Please follow @emble upvote and resteem. Thank you

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Very nice post! I think you forget that people are actually investing real money into this platform. And of course they want a nice return of investment. Therefore, whales have to have much more influence than a minnow. Steemit is pure capitalism. The winner takes it all. But maybe there are some others ideas to promote great writers that do not have a lot of SP.

·

I didn't forget, and that's why I think they should get their stake of Steem Power Rewards. But investing money doesn't make you the best author or curator. That's why I think you need different reputation tags for them backed by the community.

·
·

What you are missing @emble, is that if you do that, people will not have a good incentive to buy more steem. Then the price will fall. Then, the whole system will fall.

·
·
·

Sure they will have! They get proceeds from every post.

There are a lot of wrongheaded ideas, but let's start with the most glaring one that I found:

Steem Power rewards - 20% of all post payouts should be shared by all SP holder according to their SP ownership. People with more SP get more.

No. Just no. Post rewards are rightly distributed to the people who wrote the content and those that curated it. What you're suggesting is my hard work and effort reward everyone else who had no hand whatsoever in making that happen.

You mention voting power being linked to SP, while simultaneously being upset that whales are granted more weight in curation rewards than others. They have more SP.

As for curation bots, manual curation takes a metric fuckton of time. I manually curate heavily every day, and I don't have nearly the reach I'd like to have. Since I know several authors who consistently put out good content and wouldn't be caught dead putting out garbage, why can't I automate voting for them? Sure there's room for abuse, but there is a robust and healthy community fighting it.

The 30 minute post limit was put in place because there was reward pool raping going on prior to its implementation. It prevents the level of spam that I witnessed firsthand last year when the platform first opened to the public, and that's why it was implemented.

Finally, whales by and large earned what they have. Those posts making hundreds of dollars a day? More often than not they either invested heavily in the platform to begin with (like most of the devs and high-end witnesses) or they had a substantial following that transitioned to Steemit, bringing more people on board (like The Dollar Vigilante). Moreover, if you read the white paper, voting power is designed to diffuse to more users over time, thus reducing the scope of power the whales have without additional investment in.

·

According to my plan if you author quality posts you will get much more than you currently do. It will picked up faster by curators. The reason I suggest giving 20% for SP is because all owners of SP have a share in Steem.
People invested in Steemit should get according to their investment. But should they decide which content is good? This belong to curators that are backed by the community, not by whales because of their money.

·
·

Yes but 20% is way to heavy. Maybe like 4-6%. I agree with the rest of you ideas.

·
·
·

This is not the final proposal. Everything should be hammered out in the unlikely event that the Steemit board decides to take a look at this.

·
·
·
·

you could make a new post with the ideas from this comment section. The more people see this the better.

·
·
·
·
·

New posts will not help. We need resteemers to resteem this post, to get this message out.

·
·

They have a share in Steemit. A share that increases by putting in work (either creating content or curating). And yes, they should. That's the whole point of the platform. That's also why SP can't be withdrawn immediately; it's an investment into the platform.

I often talk about community being an important part of Steemit, but the beauty of Steemit is that everyone is a curator. There is no board that nominates curators. There's no process one can game short of actually investing money into the platform, which enriches all of us because it raises the value of the token this entire thing is built on. Curators are already back by the community; groups like @minnowsupport and @curie are community-driven curation trails. @dragonslayer109, @rhondak and everyone at the Fiction Workshop, and hundreds of other groups of individuals all work tirelessly to find good content and promote it.

You're trying to address a problem that doesn't actually exist. The only thing I've gained from your post is that you don't like whales having as much of a say in which content gets a massive payout, despite their enormous investment into the platform which gave them their position. I understand that, but this isn't a problem. Egalitarianism always ends in a race to the bottom, particularly if it's top-down like this would have to be.

·
·
·

I'm getting really tired of people attacking those of us who bought in big to the platform. I've put damn near 100K into this platform and see non-stop proposals every day to try to reduce my influence or stake. I'm always treated like "the bad guy" because I think putting in a massive fucking investment into a massively risky platform should actually create some reward.

Minnows, stop being jealous that good writers who put in 5+ digits into this platform are more successful than your cat posts to 300 followers. If you don't like it, gtfo so I can actually curate /created again.

This rant is not directed at you, I am in agreement.

·
·
·
·

Could not have said it better myself, thanks!

·
·
·
·

Tell me about it. And then I get flack for defending you guys for investing into the platform to keep it alive. How the hell are people so economically illiterate that they don't realize whale funding is the only reason Steemit is still running at basically full speed?

·
·
·
·

It is not essencially wrong to run a half-plutocratic/half-aristocratic model, but that's not what most people are signing for and without the majority all your steem will have near-to-zero value in the future. Newcomers are realizing it and trying to change the way things are instead of just leaving. Being heavly invested in steem you should be grateful and not angry about it. ;)

·
·
·
·
·

The (currency) value of Steem Power rewards comes from those who are willing to buy it and literally nothing else. Newcomers who invest nothing actually cost the platform substantially, in account creation fees and delegated power. There are thousands of these users costing the platform money for every significant investor.

Which is more valuable to court, and which is in shorter supply, is fairly obvious.

·
·
·
·
·
·

The value of BTC is just as you describe Steem. The number of users of Steem, however, is driven by Steemit. If Steemit fails, Steem will no longer have a use case, which will negatively impact it's value.

More significantly, the reverse is true. It is the content that users, those that invest nothing but time, money, and expertise, bring to Steemit, upon which the value of Steem depends.

This was the intent of Steemit. This is it's whole raison d'etre, according to the white paper.

I have nothing but good things to say about investors in Steem, however, investors traditionally invest in order to achieve capital gains, not to complain about the workers in the plant 'that only cost investors wages'.

It is those workers that potentiate Steem having any value beyond what BTC does.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Hey, I just want to clarify some confusion, and say that I totally agree with you.

Newcomers being a cost is fact. They cost money in account creation and delegation, I've seen the numbers.

However, I was referring to these ones:

"Newcomers who invest nothing actually cost the platform substantially, in account creation fees and delegated power."

I wasn't clear, and I should have been. When I said "invest nothing", I also meant the time required to create "quality content". Which, admittedly, most users do not produce. There are many users who have never produced a piece of quality content and that have generated less in total rewards than it cost Stinc/the blockchain to create their accounts.

Those are the ones I mean. The botnets, the sock puppets, the plagiarizers, most of /created (aka /new).

Minnows who create content that garners more rewards (un-botted) than their account cost to create are the bomb, and eventually they turn into dolphins which turn into whales.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I think you're touching on a serious point that no one wants to clarify properly. Investors in steem should not be entitled to anything but the steem they purchased. In the event it goes up in value, they win.

At the moment, though, they get to endlessly drain the rewards pool for themselves which makes no sense.

It is the witnesses who deserve compensation as they are essentially keeping the blockchain running.

I hope you'll consider joining the conversation in the comments of my newest post on these issues. We really need to highlight these problems for anything to change.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Maybe I am wrong, but I belive the value of steem is a consequence of the potential percieved and/or realized by steemit and other(?) steem plataforms. That's what makes people buy steem, the future potential of all this, not the short-time reward they can make upvoting themselves.

That being true, newcomers actually are showing there is real potential for steemit to reach mass adoption and without it -
being a small club of investors - steem worth close-to-nothing unless those investors are willing to invest more and/or never cashout.

For that reason, I completly disagree with your perception of newcomers as cost and I belive that if most whales see things the same way you, steem is not landing anywhere close to the moon and I will probably lose those 500 usd I invested in steem potential.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Hey, I just want to clarify some confusion, and say that I totally agree with you.

Newcomers being a cost is fact. They cost money in account creation and delegation, I've seen the numbers.

However, I was referring to these ones:

"Newcomers who invest nothing actually cost the platform substantially, in account creation fees and delegated power."

I wasn't clear, and I should have been. When I said "invest nothing", I also meant the time required to create "quality content". Which, admittedly, most users do not produce. There are many users who have never produced a piece of quality content and that have generated less in total rewards than it cost Stinc/the blockchain to create their accounts.

Those are the ones I mean. The botnets, the sock puppets, the plagiarizers, most of /created (aka /new).

Minnows who create content that garners more rewards (un-botted) than their account cost to create are the bomb, and eventually they turn into dolphins which turn into whales.

·
·
·

In a few words: Steem is over a year and still not catching up. It's hard to convince people to post here because they have no chance in climbing up this hill. And it includes you 2.

·
·
·
·

Really? Cause I've been climbing up this hill pretty steadily by putting in the work of forging bonds with the people on here and posting consistently good original material. And yes, it has been catching up. It's a slow process that's set to happen over the course of years, but SP is and will continue to diffuse across more users as time goes on. Again, it's in the white paper. The more people receiving curation/author rewards, the less rewards end up in the pocket of whales. This has been accelerated with the linear rewards curve established in Hardfork 19, as the overall weight of whale accounts has decreased.

I have had zero difficulty in explaining the situation to people on here regarding rewards, as it's a matter of perspective. Just like in the real world, if you don't have any social currency (reputation, not just a rep score), no one's going to know who you are. You have to market yourself. It takes time, and it takes effort, but if I can do it, take a break for a few months to finish a novel, and pick right back up and gain an average of 12 users a day since I've been back, anyone can.

·
·
·
·
·

I think you hit the nail on the head here. This is social jealousy. Those without the clout or the following, or the extreme writing skill to get to trending without it, are always looking for ways to try to change the system for the better.

I honestly think that most of the minnows here are basically Steemit-communists. They all want to "seize the means of production" because it's unfair that "he makes more than me after investing $10,000s"

·
·
·
·
·
·

That's exactly what it is. To quote the other guy responding to me:

some people are lucky enough to have a shit load of money to invest.

As if having a shit ton of money to invest just magically happens to people. Nope, no way hard work and effort ever factored into that. Risk assessment and leveraging your assets to get on the cutting edge? Nonsense. It's all luck.

Can't stand that shit.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Nice one; don't get me started...
You know the platform better than me; so it's good to have your perspective. Thankyou.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Those without the clout or the following, or the extreme writing skill to get to trending without it, are always looking for ways to try to change the system for the better.

Is changing the system for the better supposed to be a bad thing?

I honestly think that most of the minnows here are basically Steemit-communists. They all want to "seize the means of production" because it's unfair that "he makes more than me after investing $10,000s"

What were you expecting, an An-cap circle jerk? The vast majority of people detest anarcho-capitalism and prefer socialism. Look at reddit, /r/socialsim has around 100,000 subscribers, /r/anarchocapitalsm has around 1,500 subscribers.

If this site takes off, that's what you can expect. If it doesn't make the distribution system fairer though, it won't take off and users will abandon the site. Less people will upvote your posts and your payouts will decrease. Also, the value of steem will drop.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

That was poorly phrased on my part. I was implying "for the better" simply means whatever benefits them more.

The whole point is there isn't agreement on what "for the better" is. Sorry about that.

It's disingenuous of you to compare Socialism and An-Cap. We're talking straight capitalism here, control of one's own assets. You want to compare the numbers of capitalists and socialists in the US, totally inverting your numerical advantage?

Socialism is a garbage ideal for those with garbage logic. Like Communism, it only works in theory until you run out of other people's money (tm), and Steemit is designed to be diametrically opposed to it.

"Less people will upvote your posts and your payouts will decrease. Also, the value of steem will drop."

If you haven't already noticed that the number of your votes is almost irrelevant, because 1 whale is worth 10,000 minnows, then I don't know what to tell you. Losing a bunch of minnow votes really doesn't mean anything. Minnows, if they aren't creating quality content, are a drain on the platform.

If you have data to prove that the value of an asset will drop if you can't get it into the hands of those with no net worth, I'd love to see it.

PS - Still loving the name.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Followed you based on your comments in this thread. I'm a minnow. I'm investing a lot of time and effort to provide good content (well i hope it's classed as "good) on here. That's all i intend to do. Hopefully, over time, my investment (although not liquid like yours) will reward myself and others on here.

·
·
·
·
·

@anarcho-andrei The speed of the distribution will change depending on the inflation rate of steem (new coins issued to authors and curators) and on the behave of whales. If inflation is low and whales and selfish, the distribution may not be enought to keep new users comming to the plataform and everyone will hurt.

It's even harder when you think of other languages and without them steem will never grow global. We have good people on steem trying to make national projects, like @camoes for portuguese, but it's almost impossible to make relevant money writing in other language besides english. So, if steem is to really go global and became what it is suposed to, the distribution speed should increase. You are right, it's better after HF19, but maybe not fast enought yet.

And it's not really about social capital. A famous brazillian youtuber could come here with hundreds or thousands of fans and still would be a minnow since very few people in Brazil have any SP to vote for him. Today, it's more like a plutocracy + aristocratic system where you have to either put thousands of dolars or be connected to the nobility class to become relevant. What you are saying is that connecting to the nobility is possible and I agree, but people are saying that maybe it's not the best thing to do with this plataform.

Everyone belives on the concept, but people have different expectations. Let's keep discussing until we find a way to make everyone happy and rich. =)

Cheers!

·
·
·
·
·
·

"Let's keep discussing until we find a way to make everyone happy and rich. =)"

We don't want this. Most of the content creators on here create garbage. They deserve the nothing they get.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I guess they are posting (not even creating) garbage because that's the best cost-benefit choise if someone wants to maximize rewards.

I wrote a fairly good content 10 days ago, took me 3 hours of research and writing plus review and linking in facebook and twitter. I had almost 100 views and 10 upvotes, made 50 cents.
Two days after that, as a test, I postes a youtube video of a song that I like, absolutly no maketing or anything involved and got 15 views and 1 dólar reward.

So, if my goal was to maximize my reawards, the best option would be to just post tons of garbage stuff hoping I can get somone to vote on them or invest time and energy on a single quality post? People say that making a quality post will get you more followers and on the long tun will be better, but I belive there is a problem in the way things are done now.

One option would be to limit the dayly posts by rep, so the quality content wouldn't be lost amont tons of garbage.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

"Most of the content creators on here create garbage. They deserve the nothing they get."

I could not have less respect for that attitude.

Maybe you find @sweetsssj's posts riveting, and any number of others of little value. However, there are people that have not had your opportunities to attain liquid assets, through no fault of their own, and that does not make them less than human.

The value of Steem is derived from Steemit. Absent Steemit, your investment in Steem will prove unrewarding, and the masses of posters of 'useless' content are all that stands between you and a bad investment.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Perhaps it is because the system incentivizes this type of behavior. We need a valid solution to this.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Hi, you may be interested in joining the discussion on my recent post on Steemit's issues.

Let's all work together through building awareness of these problems to find a good solution.

·
·
·
·
·

Really? Cause I've been climbing up this hill pretty steadily by putting in the work of forging bonds with the people on here and posting consistently good original material.

Well, your transaction history tell a different story. It shows that you've been buying lot's of steem rather than earning it. It shows that you have 1,479.318 STEEM yourself and people have delegated 9,048.881 STEEM to you - probably because you purchased it off a whale. It also shows that you've been buying upvotes.

You've simply used your wealth to buy yourself a better position. How on earth is that fair to those who don't have the wealth to buy themselves influential positions?

·
·
·
·
·
·

It's my earnings. I can use them in whatever fashion I want to. As for the delegated SP, I purchased that with the earnings I gathered from all the posts I've made previous to now, and I purchased it to expand my ability to curate. So you can shove your self-righteousness. You know how I earned enough SP to power down into Steem so I could purchase wider curating power in the first place? Good original content and building relationships with people.

I earned where I'm at and what I'm doing. I've put forth a year's worth of effort to build my position. I'm all for charity; I've delegated to curation bots I believe in run by people I know and trust. I have sat on the introduceyourself tag and greeted hundreds of new Steemians and answered tons of questions on Steemit.chat and Discord to help new users out. What I will never support is the notion that this should be automatic or a feature. No one deserves something just for showing up.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Of course you can do whatever you want with your steem, that doesn't mean the system is fair.

As for the delegated SP, I purchased that with the earnings I gathered from all the posts I've made previous to now, and I purchased it to expand my ability to curate. So you can shove your self-righteousness. You know how I earned enough SP to power down into Steem so I could purchase wider curating power in the first place?

How stupid do you think people are? You powered down your SP into steem in order to use that steem to purchase 10x more SP? Sure mate, that happened.

I'm not being self-righteous, I merely pointing out the recorded facts.

I earned where I'm at and what I'm doing.

As your transaction history shows, you've clearly bought your position. I'm not saying that you haven't made good posts or been helpful, I'm merely stating a recorded and undeniable fact. You can try to deny it as much as you want but it's right there in your transaction history.

No one deserves something just for showing up.

Likewise, no one deserves anything just for being wealthy enough to be able to buy themselves a nice position.

·
·
·
·
·

Show data please.

Show me a current chart of the one I posted earlier, in reply to another comment. I have asked @arcange for a new, post HF19 chart, but receive no answer.

Social media needs to be useful to everybody, not just salespeople. While people that market themselves successfully can succeed in business, ordinary people just posting the stuff they post are the market for Steemit. This isn't supposed to be a marketing platform, but a social media site.

The rewards, as you point out, increase as folks gain followers. But, as long as bots, collusion, and punitive flagging exist, those rewards are going to continue to be concentrated in the accounts that 'game' Steemit for rewards, rather than to post ordinary content on social media.

This is not what the white paper lays out. Indeed, the white paper says

"In the real world, algorithms must be designed in such a manner
that they are resistant to intentional manipulation for profit.
Any widespread abuse of the scoring system could cause community
members to lose faith in the perceived fairness of the economic system."

·
·
·

Being equal in VP does not mean we'd end up with Kim Kardashian ASSets being the highest paid posts (a race to the bottom... get it?), but rather that the content that more people found worth a vote would be valued most.

A good way to examine what that would produce is to follow @screenname, who tracks posts that are undervalued, when the number of votes is compared to earnings. No ASSets end up on that list.

Neither does @sweetsssj. Dunno why exactly @dan started flagging her, but speculation I have heard is that the drain on the rewards pool was his target.

The problem of inequity in rewards certainly does exist, and just saying it doesn't won't make the content creators that are angry about stay and post more good content.

·
·

"People invested in Steemit should get according to their investment."

Did you notice all your support comes from no-investment, sub-60 rep commenters?

...
...
...

·
·
·

Of course, they want a change. They don't want to continue getting pennies for their work.

·
·
·
·

Maybe they should try networking with the evil whales and dolphins.

·
·
·
·
·

Maybe...

·
·
·
·
·

Networking, or pandering? Is there a difference?

I don't think there is for you.

If Steemit is all about making money, then good luck with it. That's not the goal of Steemit according to the white paper. It's supposed to be a social media site where content creators receive rewards that other social media sites just capture as profit.

This is why it's supposed to become the gorilla king of the space.

This is why it will, unless

"...abuse of the scoring system...cause[s] community members to lose faith in the perceived fairness of the economic system."

In which case, there will be no (further) capital gains for investors. Competition, which I have predicted, has arisen. Calibrae seeks to improve Steemit in several ways which @emble advises.

·

Hey @anarcho-andrei,

Glad you wrote this comment. Steemit is an opportunity. No need to complain about whales having more. There's a reason they have more and all of us have opportunity to increase our Stake in Steem. Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts on this.

·

There are a lot of wrongheaded ideas

I disagree. @emble has the right idea... even if it is possible to shoot through some of this and make it swiss cheese.

A more complex system to get content reviewed and published is exactly what steemit needs.

I know we're still in BETA, and I know it's been a little over a year...

...but what @emble described... a variation of it... is what we may need and see in the future.

I thank him for his proposal. It's a good starting point to get us looking at what types of solutions could exist.

·
·

Or, conversely, if we could remove a mountain of crap posts, that would be great.

What about filters for the following:

"Under two sentence post"
"Picture post only"

etc. If I could get all that crap out of /created, I'd feel less like I'm wasting my life everyday trying to curate that garbage.

·
·
·

Why not limit the posts/week by rep?

·
·
·

I would strongly support better filtering.

I'd also strongly support being able to filter out posts that have been upvoted by bots.

I would upvote none of them.

·
·
·
·

That's an interesting idea! I hadn't thought of the bots option.

The problem is you'd have to restrict it to users who used the bot themselves, because otherwise you could censor anyone by throwing them a randowhale vote. Then, you'd have problems regulating this, because people would just use another account to trigger the bot...you'd end up having to manually weed these out.

I think the technical limitations here might be a problem. Perhaps all bots need to be disabled unless whitelisted by community consensus (cheetah, steem cleaners).

·
·
·
·
·

I'd very strongly support disabling bots that curate. Unless folks consider AI to be equal to people in rights, then I don't want bots voting. If folks do consider AI to be equal to people, Imma quite voting altogether.

There are other bots that do good stuff, such as bots that ferret out good content and suggest it to people. While this treads close to the edge, I wouldn't mind a bot that provided a list of posts that contained no recipes for baked goods, make up tips, or pics of Kardashians.

The real issue for me is curation. I remain unaware of any bots writing posts, yet, so am not exercised about that.

·

No. Just no. Post rewards are rightly distributed to the people who wrote the content and those that curated it. What you're suggesting is my hard work and effort reward everyone else who had no hand whatsoever in making that happen.

This is pure nonsense. You may have put in the effort to create a decent article, but if it wasn't for the people upvoting it and the flawed system which allows whales to make shit loads of money simply by upvoting their own content, you would get no monetary reward from your effort.

Finally, whales by and large earned what they have.

Did they fuck!

Those posts making hundreds of dollars a day? More often than not they either invested heavily in the platform to begin with (like most of the devs and high-end witnesses) or they had a substantial following that transitioned to Steemit, bringing more people on board (like The Dollar Vigilante).

That doesn't mean they earned it any more than a lottery winner earned their money. A whale can only claim to have earned their place if they've got their through curation and posting alone. Just like some people are lucky enough to win lotteries, some people are lucky enough to have a shit load of money to invest.

·
·

some people are lucky enough to have a shit load of money to invest.

The fuck outta here with that nonsense. Let me guess: rich people never earn their position, right?

·
·
·

No, quite a few people have worked their way up from the very bottom and earned their position and wealth. Investors don't earn their income though and that's why their income is classed as unearned income as opposed to earned income.

None of the wealthiest people have earned all their money though as it simply isn't possible to actually earn that much money.

If you make a shit load of money from investing, you've done nothing to earn that money. You've used money to make more money and any rich idiot can easily do that by paying someone to do it for them - they don't even have to do it themselves.

·
·
·
·

None of the wealthiest people have earned all their money though as it simply isn't possible to actually earn that much money.

And the crack-addict in Detroit who just sold his Obama-phone earned more than an malnourished infant in Somalia. @marcusorlyius
What happens when Atlas shrugs, Marxus O'Rlyius?

None of the wealthiest people have earned all their money though as it simply isn't possible to actually earn that much money.

You pay Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk & will soon pay Daniel Larimer, Ned Scott & I'm betting on Honest Andy, @anarcho-andrei too.

John Lennon got this one right.

·
·
·
·
·

What happens when Atlas shrugs, Marxus O'Rlyius?

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

You pay Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk & will soon pay Daniel Larimer, Ned Scott & I'm betting on Honest Andy, @anarcho-andrei too.

What the fuck are banging on about, you gibbering loon?

John Lennon got this one right.

He sure did.

·
·
·
·
·
·

What the fuck are banging on about, you gibbering loon?
@marcusorlyius

Ah! @@@marcusorlyius
Ad hominem eh?

The Gibbering Loon

As your dead prophet at Highgate would say

When you run out of arguments on any day

Innuendo & slander work anyway

What if someone you out-thinks?

Opium eating masses; are anyway out of sync.

Show them the ones they can loot

The real One, Marxus O'Rlyius, knows a tree by its fruit

PS: John Lennon went to be as one with the world, leaving behind everything to Yoko Ono including a Rolls-Royce Phantom. Of course, the children of Bangladesh did not count. It did for George Harrison, though.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

The variant suspects near the misuse! Her starting midnight mutters. The discipline cautions! An algebraic flute consults a commentary. Should a bone patent the mucking exam? An aerial voltage slices the cook. Under the attack pauses a dependence. The bookshop alleviates the layer. The paranoid nostalgia enlightens the camera across a state pan. Around the responsible well withdraws a lengthy garden. The idiot executes a wolf. The total lawyer writes after a sect. The dirt rests. An ally lowers the dual umbrella inside every blank. Outside the easier jest dances the intermittent bundle. The slave ascends. The chalk boils. On top of the initial dead advances every broad answer. The unstable servant multiplies near the correspondence. How does a token lean behind a grown plaster?

·
·
·
·

Where'd the money come to invest in the first place? Magic? And how is investment - taking calculated risks or paying someone to manage those risks for you - not earning the income you make? You put your currency on a risk hoping it pays off in a certain term. It's a risk. There's a chance you might lose it.

Given your propensity for communism, I can see how you'd think that people don't deserve to keep what they make off of trades. If you want communism, go start a commune. Stop trying to ruin my platform.

·
·
·
·
·

Where'd the money come to invest in the first place? Magic?

No, it came from working or from inheritance. Just because you earned money in the past though, that doesn't mean that any money you make in the future has also been earned.

And how is investment - taking calculated risks or paying someone to manage those risks for you - not earning the income you make?

Earned Income vs. Unearned Income

Did you think I was just making those terms up or something?

You put your currency on a risk hoping it pays off in a certain term. It's a risk. There's a chance you might lose it.

Is it though? What's the risk to a billionaire if they lose a $1m on a bad investment? There's no actual risk whatsoever. It's like me throwing a penny away.

Given your propensity for communism, I can see how you'd think that people don't deserve to keep what they make off of trades. If you want communism, go start a commune. Stop trying to ruin my platform.

It's not your platform and communes are not communism. I'm not a hippy and I'm not living in the the 20th century. Automated labour and Matrix like VR through brain-computer interfaces is the way to achieve communism. I don't need to do anything but wait a couple of decades. We'll all be god like entities at that point capable of creating anything we want just by thinking. All your wealth will be worthless and you'll have the same power as everybody else.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Let me know when you can create matter from nothing. I'm sure the Venus Project is going to make communism work this time.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

What's the Venus Project got to with anything I just said and why would I need to be able to create matter out of nothing? Do you not know what VR or brain-computer interfaces are?

Loading...

Some of these solutions definitely need some fine tuning...but the only one I'd definitely remove is:

The rule of upvoting before 30 minutes should be nulled.

I'm actually very ok with the concept of curators giving up gains because they vote within moments.

There are plenty of posts that randomly get upvoted without actually viewing the content in full.

At best, if you wanted to modify that, I'd consider using the same formula "Medium.com" uses to predict read time...and if it has a video in it, API call to YouTube to get the runtime for that video as well...but I wouldn't totally remove the rule.

·

The rule was made because of the upvoting bots, but if we remove these bots and we remove the upvoting button from the Title link page, than it shouldn't be a problem. But yes your solution sounds good.

I would give you back up on this everytime. This is a nice plan.
Best,
mountain.phil28

All good ideas but I think the major problem here on steemit is the signup process. I'm still getting message after message from my audience telling me that they can't sign up or they are having problems signing up. First impressions are important and many of these people will never be back.

·
·
·

Yeah, that's kinda my point. If people have to pay to sign up because its so complicated...FAIL. I mean we want mass adoption eventually right? Social media should not be hard to take part in...IMHO.

·
·
·

The website is still in beta.. The current signup process is not the final product. They are working on changes to the whole signup process in hardfork 20. The system that is in place for now works for the time being, and when there are cases where it doesn't - the people in the community are here to help.

·
·
·
·

Im really looking forward to the updates....just not sure how my audience will react to, "okay, this time it really will be easy to sign up an account". Im all about second chances though.

·
·
·
·
·

It is a goal of the dev team to improve and streamline this process. It is probably going to take some time to get there though. As users of a 'beta' website, we should not have the expectation that everything is going to work 100% optimally and have all the bells and whistles of a full blown social media platform. It is a work in progress, and we also need to consider how the platform will look in 6 months or even a year or more. Right now we are all the 'early adopters' - giving the site a try and providing feedback on how it can be made better.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Hopefully we don't have a sudden influx of new accounts. According to @furion, @netuoso, and others, the network is iffy now, and dramatically increasing the number of users may well cause it to be unusable.

This is not my specialty, and I am not privy to the technical details. You might be, as a witness, though. Anything you can add to the issue with RPC nodes, and requiring more and more RAM to keep Steemit running?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

On the witness side, things are pretty good. I personally run three 32 GB RAM servers for my witness, and I have a 32 GB RAM public seed node.

Steemit recently wrote a post regarding the scalability concerns. It sounds like things are under control.
https://steemit.com/steemitdev/@steemitdev/steem-blockchain-update-august-2017

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by emble from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.

I really like the idea. I've been reduced to kinda spamming things a little. Just to get the word out of what I want to promote or talk about. I'm a real person, not a bot. I figured out it's not easy to make it, like you said, some just talk about some coffee they had and make $500.00. UPvoted.

P.S. I've recently moved to Whaleclub for my trading. Whaleclub also gives you demo money to play with, to try it out before you commit any real money. Comment or PM me with any questions. I'd like to get a group of us together possibly to discuss current events in the crypto space :P

https://www.coinbase.com/join/5946e2ab468d030e480cf68b
https://whaleclub.co/join/NcE0h - 30% bonus on first deposit with my link!

·

You're right, you are kinda spamming.

Still, you substantively commented on the post, so I'll cut you slack. I can honestly relate to the frustration that comes of trying to promote and running into ignorance and apathy.

Still... there is something to be said for simply making relevant comments, and letting the quality of your comments drive subscriptions to your blog, where you can post advertisements.

Just sayin'.

·
·

Yeah I've cut back on it, I want to be more legit :)

This post has received a 0.96 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @emble.

Some very interesting ideas, similar to past ideas of mine. The exact implementation needs more thought though. I don't have time to go into detail right now because it's extremely complex.

·

Thanks for getting the message out. This is not meant to be a final proposal, just a new way of thinking here. It's true people invested a lot of money and that's why they should get rewarded with the Steem Power rewards. But to keep motivation, attract new authors, and make Steemit a source for quality posts - a seperation of power is required in my opinion.

·
·

You're on the right track, a lot can be improved on SteemIt. Starting with rating curators in some way, currently only authors are rated. Also currently curators aren't earning enough when voting on others, so a lot just decide to vote on themselves without creating content (just a 1liner spam comment).

What if Steemit simply didn't show the curation/post rewards. If people didn't know how much a post was worth, would they upvote it anyways?

At that point, it would be more similar to Reddit (except you earn crypto, it's not censored and there are no adds).

·

That would also be a great idea. Currently the platform users focus is making money, so why do you need the read articles - a bot is good. But if you want it to be good content a change is needed.

·

Making the curation reward 'blind' would only deprive the general populace of insider information. Cliques of folks currently collude in timing their upvotes to capture the bulk of curation rewards, while sending the post on to the trending page. I have witnessed this happen, in a chatroom, where the timing was discussed.

The clique has to have enough SP to make the post trend in order to profit the most, but, in lesser form, this is exactly what MSP and other bot driven curation trails do.

The blindness only impacts those that are not in communication with the author, or for authors that aren't guaranteed to trend. Your proposal would not work for @sweetsssj's posts, for example, because her every post, no matter what the content, trends.

In order to continue to game the system with @sweetsssj, you only need to be able to curate her posts within the first 30 minutes, and this is relatively easy to do, even without direct colllusion, just by programming a bot to watch for her posts.

·
·

Very good points. Do you have any recommendations?

·
·
·

I do. Recently there have been a couple developments that hugely impact Steemit, and the rewards mechanism.

The SEC has announced that they have the authority to regulate cryptos, such as Steem, that are securities. Steem, since it's the basis for voting rewards, as SP, which weights VP, and thus determines how rewards are disbursed, is a security. Also, Steemit now has competition, or is about to, as @elfspice, a former Steemit witness (l0k1) has started Calibrae.

Most of the problems with user dissatisfaction with rewards on Steemit are due to the weighting of VP by SP. This weighting assures that the same factors that influence wealth throughout history (it takes money to make money) influence wealth on Steemit. There are other problems, but some of THEM stem from the influence of SP on voting, as well.

I have recommended that votes be equal, and that investors receive their gains as the price of Steem appreciates, just as they do for BTC, or stocks, bonds, and all other traditional investment vehicles. The mining of the rewards pool needs to end, and rewards need to be distributed to authors that are popular with folks, not just rich folks.

One whale vote can presently be worth more than 10,000 minnow votes. There is no way that the 'masses' will find this a fair system, and they will vote with their feet, since they can't vote with SP.

The reason the SEC matters is that only because VP is weighted by SP does Steem become a security. Were votes equal, or weighted (as I prefer) by reputation, the SEC would not have any authority to regulate - or prosecute - anything on Steemit. Since most of the Steem in existence was mined before Steemit even had users, and then Steem was offered to the public after those huge stakes were mined, those 'investors' may have trouble with the SEC, regarding offering securities to the public.

I don't want that trouble to come to Steemit. I don't think anyone does.

Calibrae is a HF of Steemit, which is designed to eliminate the stakes that derive from mining before Steemit was available to the public, and make some other changes that make it more fair.

It is the first Steemit fork to do so that I am aware of, it is just beginning, but it will not be the last.

Before Calibrae, Steemit really had no competition, and anyone that wanted to get rewards for posts had to come to Steemit, regardless if they thought it was fair or not. Calibrae is competition for that exact space, and either Steemit will be better received by the public, or it won't. There is now a market for this kind of social media, rather than only one choice.

As I said, Calibrae will not be the last Steemit competitor either, and those problems Calibrae fails to fix, someone else will, until we have an optimal platform (according to my basic understanding of economics).

Calibrae yet retains SP (or Juice, as @elfspice calls it) to weight VP, and I think this is a mistake.

However, we'll see.

·
·
·
·

More excellent points.

For what it's worth, I gave you a full upvote for this.

Likely the best reply I've read since starting steemit.

·
·
·
·
·

Ah, now I'm blushing! Thanks for your kind words =)

·
·
·
·

Great response. I've mentioned much of the same in my own post on the subject, but was told my post "doesn't even make sense" lol.

Very good read you definitely have a point something different is needed, cheers mike

·

Thanks for your support. We are all in the same boat. Whales should be the first to support this change, it will bring them much more wealth.

good ideas - i am following you in support

I think it's great to think about these types of things, I wish I was as motivated to "think about the system". No system is perfect and can always be improved; Steemit is no exception. One point I'd like to make is that while it could be more fair, I also think it's a good thing that it is difficult to become "whale-like" and make a lot on your posts. I definitely don't think it should be easy. Even if their posts seem silly sometimes, most "whales" have worked hard and long for their following, and not just a following, but the right kind of following. It incentivises me to work harder and I respect that.

Anyway, I look forward to following your ideas in the future, and I hope we can get Steemit to the right balance of power. Thanks!

·

It's true that "most "whales" have worked hard and long for their following" but quality content should be king. You can see posts that would be downvoted for spam making a lot of money.

·

It's not difficult at all if you're wealthy though as you could just purchase SP, essentially allowing wealthy people to dominate the site an earn all the rewards whilst giving them the power to censor the views of those who are poorer than them. This should come as no surprise given that it's made by an-caps. Also, this is what an an-cap society would like like.

·
·

One thing I have posted about that you mention here, is that with sufficient capital, Steemit can be completely controlled.

There are entities with sufficient capital to purchase nominal Steem to completely control the witnesses, which in turn allows control of the code that Steemit runs on. I believe this was not unknown to the devs, although the only evidence of this is that they're smart people, and it's an obvious feature of the weighting of VP by SP.

If some RL whale buys enough stake to do this, the devs retire rich. If it doesn't happen, Steemit keeps growing and becoming more relevant - until it does happen. It may not be a get rich quick scheme, but as long as Steemit doesn't fail for some other reason, it is a get rich for sure scheme.

Some good critical points on how to make it Steem even better ... especially for little fish!

·

Thanks for your input. We need to spread the word

Great ideas emble! I think you really have some valid points here and your solutions would make Steemit more fair and give all of us a better experience.

My only concern is the 1% referral commission. It might resemble a MLM system too much.

Upvote and resteem from me!
@ronni

·

I don't think rewarding referrals resembles an MLM. You don't have to refer to make money, It's just like an affiliate link that all big companies - like Amazon & eBay - use.
Thanks for you support.

I don't know what 'designs' Steemit had in mind when they built this platform and I don't know if your suggestions are any better, BUT what I do know is that if the platform doesn't find a way to get better circulation and "compensation" of its "better" authors, then eventually the most talented people WON'T stay here and that will create the opportunity for competition that might drive Steem prices down as people leave for a "better" option.

·

I agree, the first alternative to address all these problems, will for sure build on the expense of steemit.

·

Calibrae has already begun. @elfspice, a former witness, has recently begun to solicit 'survivors' that seek a platform with greater fairness.

Lemme know what you think.

..respect!..don t know if agree with everything, but you think seriously about it..seems to me..follow you..upvoted..resteemed..

·

Thanks for your support.

This makes totally sense. I am newbie, but I see your points, which urgently needs correction.enter image description here

·

I hope you will succeed here.

I got a bellyRub and this post has received a 2.45 % upvote from @bellyrub thanks to: @emble.

What if you take %5 rewards away from curation and give it to everyone who resteems?

·

Nice idea. But usually resteeming is not a hard work. It's a click of a button. You don't have to browse through all the posts. My idea is, you get paid for doing the job.

·

I've thought about a curation-like curve for resteeming too. It might be worth investigating further. There will probably also be opportunities for abuse.

I agree with your overall sentiment but strongly disagree with some of proposals to sort it as they would just further increase the inequality.

For example, having more SP shouldn't allow you to earn more SP. That's completely backwards and just funnels SP to those who already have the most. What's required is a progressive distribution system like that used for income taxes.

·

It's like saying that people who have more money in the bank should not get more interest. SP is like money invested in the bank, so if you own some of them, you should get more interest. It's only a question how much.

·
·

Yes it is like that and that's also completely fucked up. Why should being wealthy allow you to accrue more wealth for doing absolutely fuck all compared to someone doing hard physical labour every day? Such a system is pure insanity and the only possible outcome is the majority of wealth being funnelled to those at the top.

This is true even if everyone earns the same percentage - a poor person with $10 to invest could double their money to $20 making $10. Meanwhile the wealthy person who invested $1m in the same stock will earn $1m. Why should the wealthy person be able to earn $1m more than the poor person if they both did the exact same work? If you think that's fair, you must also think it fair to have a pay difference of 100,000:1 for two factory workers doing the exact same work.

This isn't a flaw in the system. The system was specifically designed to do this.

Like I said, the only way to sort it out is by using a system similar to progressive tax systems that dampens the power of those with the most SP and boost the power of those with the least. Those with the most SP still get the most SP, they just no longer get ridiculously greater amounts of SP.

Given that most of the devs and witnesses are ancaps though, I don't see it happening. What I do see happening is a rival platform not dominated by ancaps using a sensible distribution system rather than the idiotic system in use here. Just like the majority abandoned digg for reddit due to power users dominating the site, the majority will leave steam for the new system that isn't dominated by the wealthy.

·
·
·

@elfspice is making Calibrae. Check it out.

Even if your post makes it to @curie"

It's worth noting here that Curie has a reputation cap for submission. So, if Curie gives you a bump once, you'll probably have too high of a rep to be eligible again. @JerryBanfield has a great post covering all the ins and outs of Curie for those who are interested.

"Steem Power rewards - 20% of all post payouts should be shared by all SP holder according to their SP ownership. People with more SP get more."

This is an interesting idea, but like much of the rest of your post, I think is far too drastic a change. Not going to get witness and community consensus on such enormous changes.

It seems most of your suggestions are to reduce the influence of stakeholders, so why would stakeholders buy in to this?

·

Companies uses profit for dividends or growth.
Steemit dividends are the rewards old investors/whales get and Steemit growth is achieved by atracting more active members to the community.

Newcomers represent the growth of this endeavour and stakeholders have to decide if they do rather get rewarded more now (dividends) or re-invest it to turn those newcomers into active members, increasing the lon-term value of the plataform.

How do you vote, sir?

·

The stakeholders will get paid per their investment regardless if they vote or not. That's 1 good reason for them to support this change. Second, the price of steem will soar with these change bringing a lot more users and adoption of steem. Else steem will stay a small community with whales to stay and minnows to go. That means almost no new authors + no adoption = Steem to fail.

The worst problems are most human profiles being spammers and spammer-minded and this: https://steemit.com/steemit/@stimialiti/bots-and-multiple-accounts-on-steemit

The suicide part is by not having direct ads, although the promoted content and the system as is now, actually encourage advertisement in a sense and help mitigate some of this problem.

Almost every single idea in your post is exactly correct. I would only disagree with the referral 1% (which opens up the Ponzi scheme nightmare, and presents other difficulties), and am perhaps unclear on what you mean by departments.

If you mean actual offices, I'm agin' it. However, you imply that the Curation department is us, and that just means the public decides, which is cool.

I reckon one important matter you have missed is that some votes are worth more than others, and this isn't cool. As you point out, just because someone has a grip of ducats doesn't mean their opinion is of greater value than a pauper's.

Votes should be equal.

This also eliminates a great many work arounds and fixes that have been put into place, including bots curating, to try to feed rewards to authors with small holdings of SP.

Frankly, all of those work arounds pale in comparison to simple popularity, as folks should decide what is good content, not tricks, timing, or the thickness of the wallets folks are packing.

Great post! Imma follow you now.

Sorry I missed the curation cutoff, or I'd have thrown a vote at you too.

·

I didn't mean physical departments, I meant it should be separated. I'm not a fan of equal votes because there are better curators then other. Imo the folks should decide who are the better curators.

·
·

That's what reputation is: vetting by the community. I'm quite in favor of VP being weighted by reputation, for exactly the reason you state. I'm also hard agin' SP being used to weight VP, for all the reasons you mention, and mebbe more.

Take a look at the Calibrae project. It is a fork of Steemit. The aim is to fix the problems you are discussing. Development is well under way. Comment on the thread if you want your account copied over from Steemit.

https://steemit.com/calibrae/@elfspice/calibrae-strategy-change-opt-in-rather-than-algorithmically-determined-opt-out

Read further posts about the project here

https://steemit.com/trending/calibrae

·

Yes, I saw it and already commented. I'm still not sure what it will look like because currently it's a 1 man band.

·
·

I have been having indepth conversations with him. He knows his stuff. He's recruiting others for the task.

·
·
·

Great!

This is a solid proposition. I've written my own stance on the matter here. You might be interested in checking it out and joining the discussion in the comments.

You are right @emble. So, what's happening now? Can we have any update on this?