RE: Is DPoS Just a Popularity Contest?
I suspect that the drop has been in part due to your lack of presence on the platform. Bernie did a post a while back calling out the top 20 on why they are witnesses. The resulting comment thread was rather interesting as various people posted their knowledge and perceptions of what the different witnesses were doing or not doing. As I recall, you didn't get many shining comments.
Bernie is not the only person on this platform who is determined to be anonymous and not to come on voice for any reason. He's controversial but he does care about the platform. That is consistent.
I really do take notice of your attitude of 'explaining' the changes to the people. If you spend a bit of time looking at posts and comment threads you will find there are a lot of the community who are opposed to the HF. They are getting less patient with some of the top 20 who seem intent on doing more imposing than listening.
The last few weeks of traveling certainly didn't help, and I didn't end up getting notifications from bernie's post (or if I did, I missed them).
HF21 includes changes that have been endlessly debated over and over again for many months. With Steem tanking in price compared to other cryptocurrencies, I'm surprised there's so much opposition to attempts at improving things. We've tried intense reward curves, we've tried linear curves, makes sense to me to try something else and see what works. More curation rewards may reward those who find valuable content. It may also reward those who already have a lot of Steem Power (which many may not like, but it might also create incentives for people to buy Steem Power instead of just dumping Steem). We won't know until we try it out.
back a while ago I picked up a link some where to a search someone had done which showed who was withdrawing from the platform and how much. Going through that list gave me a pretty good idea what was causing the price to be so stagnant ... too many larger stakeholders powering down while being busy pointing the finger at Steemit Inc for doing so
I wrote a fairly lengthy post on my views on HF 21
There are not many who are buying into the argument that more curation rewards will produce more people finding valuable content. Actually reading and finding content takes time, those seeking more ROI will not spend that time when they have other options.
Many content creators, especially ones who take the time to produce reasonably decent content are rather dismayed at the disrespect coming from some among the top 20 who claim that content creators are over rewarded and a drain on the system.
Cutting the rewards at the same time yet another cut is being discussed to fund the SPS is pushing some content creators to question if there is any value in even continuing to produce content here. I'm not just talking about bloggers, I'm talking about any content creators. So, if they power down and wander off because of the continued hits at their rewards instead of increased curation being paid to find 'valuable' content we'll end up with increased curation to run curation bots to vote on whatever and increase their ROI.
That is the more likely outcome which explains why so many of the top 20 are willing to approve the changes. It's not about what is good for the platform as much as equating good for platform with being good for self.
Since I repurpose my content to other places, if I find my rewards taking much of a hit, I'll just put my attention else where. Right now I publish on Steem first and the other places after. That could find change taking place if the outcome is negative.
Maybe that was me. Exchange Transfer Transparency for 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Agreed, but it's a little different when Steemit Inc set an intention for the funds (as far as I understand) and then later decided to use them differently. Also, Steemit Inc powered down because, according the CEO at the time, the funds were "not safe" on chain which, IMO, was a terribly irresponsible (and inaccurate) message.
What other options will they have under the new model? Won't they delegate to curation services staffed by people who are willing to put in that time?
I get that, but I also think we should be clear what we mean by "drain on the system." If many content creators come to Steem for free rewards for their content, then they will understandably have the perspective that they can and should cash those rewards out as they see fit, almost like creating content on Steem is a job and they are getting paid to do it. When it comes to cryptocurrency, that's not really how things work. The price goes up when people speculate and hold and others buy. If more people are selling than buying (and that's been the case for the exchange transfer report I've been doing for years), then the price goes down. From a certain perspective, those saying the people cashing out author rewards are a drain are not wrong. At the same time, your point is well taken that we need both. If people aren't creating good content here, then what's the point of it all?
That said, people create good content on sites all the time and get paid nothing so I'm not sure going from 75% to 50% will have that huge of an impact unless people are already here for reasons which don't make much sense to me (i.e. treating content creation here like a job).
In theory, if the curation algorithm is correct, only good content will be rewarded. If that's no the case, then yes, we will have a problem.
Couldn't this argument go the other way as well? Having a development fund which is decentralized and controlled by the community instead of just one company is (IMO) good for and important for the platform. I'd go so far as to say it may be critical for its long-term survival. Couldn't authors be missing this point and thinking about their own rewards instead? I personally think the portion going to a development fund is to high to start and voted for it to be lower, but other witnesses disagreed. I think the development fund should start small, prove itself, and grow in the future if needed. I also think taking some rewards from the top 20 witnesses could help (and maybe even distributing some of those rewards to backup witnesses).