Steem Guild: a (drama-free) proposal for an alternative approach
Gratuitous picture to get your attention:
I've been following the discussions surrounding the Steem Guild, and while I don't like the idea of voting guilds, for much the same reasons already put forward by @schattenjaeger in this excellent post, I appreciate the effort to try and keep good authors.
I do think, however, that if you feel you must start such a guild, making a list and curating authors on that list is not the way to go about it, however well-intentioned it may be. So, I want to propose an alternative approach.
Good authors coming from Curie should already have a following, and if they don't, giving them money doesn't expose them to more followers (which they should have at this point in the first place). The problem is not that they don't have followers, but that, for some, their followers are too poor to do them any good financially.
So, wouldn't it be better to give rewards to people on the Most Undervalued Posts list as provided by e.g. @screenname's The Daily Tribune?
The advantages are:
- You don't submit the voting for the many to the tastes and rules of a few; you let the larger community decide what is interesting content, in stead of a committee;
- You give money to those who make popular content, but don't get paid for it, removing some of the frustration of getting 100+ votes with only $0.11 to show for it;
- It scales better, as the "normal" voters do most of the work selecting worthwhile authors;
- It prevents criticisms of centralisation;
- It makes sure no authors are forgotten on your list, as you don't need a list;
- You don't spend money on authors that already have rich followers and are doing fine under their own, eh, steam;
- It empowers the small-wallet voters; at least the number of their votes benefits authors financially, removing some of the frustration of voting for someone but not doing them any good financially.
Bot voting checks required, of course, as always. Bots voting for profit are the bane of Steemit, but that is another subject.
Shoot.
I have noticed most authors on the Most Undervalued Posts lists are on the Steem Guild list. That is precisely because the guild has been successful in growing an audience for users. Without Steem Guild that list would look very, very different.
I have also noticed that Steem Guild stop voting on authors once they are doing fine on their own; or on posts that have already got some good payout. But perhaps we can get someone from Steem Guild to comment on that. Needless to say, the authors come from Curie, and these are chosen by the community - now more than ever.
I think Steem Guild already does whatever you are suggesting and has been functioning very efficiently for months now. The proof is in the pudding.
If you feel you have a better model, please start your own competing guild. There are plenty of whales that do not vote at all. Get in touch with them, convince them you have a better model. If your model is better than Steem Guild, it's quite likely the whales would move to the better solution.
I don't understand how the Steem Guild "grows an audience for users", other than by publishing lists. My not understanding doesn't mean it isn't true, of course, but what is the mechanism behind giving rewards leading to a larger audience?
The same can best be said of the Best Sellers List in the traditional publishing industry, yet it continues to help authors gain recognition and audience. The reason featured articles and lists from influencers work is because it is embedded in human nature to seek out sources of authority on subjects. Like it or not Curie and STEEM Guild are considered sources of authority on emerging and established authors, so publishing those lists get voters on a number of significant bot trains which follow STEEM Guild and Curie, have significant STEEM Power attached to them and result in larger rewards from the voting pool.
This leads to a bigger issue which may be more significant than Cure and STEEM Guild lists. It is the issue of bots and how much they have dominated the reward pool voting. Generally speaking, most bot algorithms are focused on maximizing curation rewards for the bot owner at the expense of emerging and unique authors.
Curie and STEEM Guild serve a vital purpose with human curation. Tied with their own STEEM Power from the whales who have entrusted them as proxies, and the bot trains which follow them to maximize curation rewards for their owners, the human curation element exposes emerging and unique authors to those trains, which could eventually land them regular audiences and rewards they would not have seen otherwise.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about guilds and bots, but I think it’s the best patch to a system whose vote weighting needs to be addressed while not blowing up the system completely.
I bought a new Playstation the other day, so I haven't been on Steemit a lot. I'll leave this comment here as a bookmark, so I can get back to it. I'll read this at work tomorrow.
my issue is that some guilds have the influence and techno ability to direct votes to and away from authors posts.
I think the bigger picture is being missed.
Wouldn't the guild's following the popular vote prevent much of that? At least, that's what I hope 8-).
there are many things that could be done differently to make steemit more valuable for investment and for writers. This idea is maybe one of them.
We will probably never know. This is the way things are.
Something will come along that attracts investment and retains users. Maybe Steemit will adapt but the people in control of the votes that matter will not enjoy it. So i expect something else will come along.. it always does.