You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Curation Earnings Analysis (with stats and thoughts on 50 / 50 curation system proposal)
A completely flexible curation slider (0 - 100%) at the discretion of the voter.
Setting curation rewards per voter would be a pretty major change to how rewards are calculated. How would you imagine this being done technically?
If combined with "flat" curation I think that the calculations become simple.
For example, if my vote is worth 100m rshares, then if I set my curation slider to 50%, I get (the vests value of) 50m rshares and the author gets 50m rshares. If I set my curation slider to 0%, the author receives the full value of the 100m rshares and I get no curation. There is no interaction between the votes of different voters on a post, so the calculations should be much simpler than they are now.
At the extreme, if I set my curation slider to 100% I get the value of all the 100m rshares back and the author does not get any reward from me. So maybe there is an argument for a maximum level on the slider. On the other hand there would still be visibility value from receiving upvotes with no author rewards, so personally I think a maximum level is not required, particularly as any maximum level just brings us back to vote-selling being the most lucrative option.
Can you imagine digging through your votes to see how much % each one is actually giving to the author? "Oh man I got a $20 upvote from @famous_whale! Oh, it's 100% curation :-(". Not exactly the experience that would drive users to the site IMO.
The top ROI strategy would be to simply automatically vote with 100% for posts that are approaching payout time. You wouldn't even need to consume RC's making your own comments. From a standard user perspective, you would just feel used to get such votes that don't give you anything.
You can already allocate your voting power to pay yourself if you like. If you're voting for someone else's post, some of the reward should go to them unless people have elected themselves to be paid in exposure.
I think that this is partly a User Interface problem to solve. It could be made into quite a positive thing. If @ famous_whale gives me $20 at 100% curation and @ MrGenerous gives me $5 at 50% curation then the interface could show:
Visibility $25 Rewards $2.50
with a breakdown of:
famous_whale Visibility $20 Rewards $0
MrGenerous Visibility $2.50 Rewards $2.50
With visibility determining my position on trending etc. Both visibility and rewards measures could be seen as positive to new users.
Of course it would be a big change to what we have now, so a shock for existing users. But I think that something needs to change fairly drastically on the content side of Steem.
I don't think that there are any ROI strategies, unless I've missed something. Oh, are you talking time value of money over seven days? Pretty small beer I think?
If blocktrades, or another whale, were to upvote my post for $50, but only give me 10% author rewards, or even 0%, then I would be happy with that. As long as it got me $50 of visibility on the post payout then it has value. With more visibility more people would see my post. Some of those readers might give me a percentage of their upvote too. Some might just give me more visibility. Advertising / sponsorship follow and then the big time.
You can. But such practices damage Steem by making trending a nonsense and failing to promote great content. I think that we need solutions to get great content onto trending and get the best Steem content creators out there.