Witness clayop update 2017/2/21
Quick but late update. I wrote a joint post with other activly participating Steemians. The main argument is applying linear(modified) reward calculation.
I am also building conceptual framework about the problem of curation at the moment. A preliminary conclusion is the mixture of different motivations, i.e. financial benefit and psychological satisfaction, under one territory (curation). I appreciate much to whom provided productive feedback on my immature suggestion, and will polish my thoughts and share them soon.
When it comes to SBD statistics last week, the price is mostly below $1, probably due to STEEM decrease, but still conversion is greater than creation. I am going to increase back the interest rate to 2% and maybe going to do more in the future.
Thank you. Agree about curation issue.
I think again we should not overcomplicate and simply let people what on what they want.
We can then count activity and give fewards if people vote x out of n days (ie 20 out of 30 with min 4 votes per day) or something like this. That way we can reward activity but give users full control of what they want to like.
If users start exploiting this we can then worry about it.
I just wrote a blog post indicating some of the solutions to peoblwms i see that hold the price down.
Interesting post. I want to add one thing: bots are not bad. They are just automated humans according to preset rules for specific purposes. The problem I think is our current system that enforces users doing profit-maximizing votes, instead of quality-of-contents-maximizing votes.
Completely agree. I dont think bots are bad but it is paramount that users vote for what they like vs what is profitable.
Correct. Bots are the most cost-efficient option (almost zero cost, running 24hrs) under the current system.
You might be interested in [this].(https://steemit.com/censorship/@gutzofter/rational-steemit-curators-want-to-suppress-your-vote-maybe-clickbait)