RE: Top 21 Steem Witnesses ~ HardFork 21

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Top 21 Steem Witnesses ~ HardFork 21

snook (70)in #witness • 7 years ago (edited)

@guiltyparties, @timcliff, @someguy123, @themarkymark, @thecryptodrive, @followbtcnews, @drakos, @stoodkev, @arcange, @nextgencrypto, @patrice, @c0ff33a, @ura-soul, @ats-witness, @quochuy, @pjau, and @castellano. I would love to hear your thoughts. I know my vote is small but I still vote for all of you.

7 years ago in #witness by snook (70)

Sort:

ura-soul (75) 7 years ago

I have been very busy writing code for the last few months - to integrate Steem into https://www.ureka.org - so I am not able to keep up with all the discussions as much as usual. This post seems to be based on the idea that switching to a 50/50 curator/author split will only result in benefits for investors - is that accurate?
I have already replied to someone else on this recently and it was quite a long response - because the system has so many facets.
In short, there are several relevant points:

Steem hasn't exploded as some thought it would (partially imo because of slow development and zero marketing). The inflationary process that creates rewards means that author payouts come directly from the pockets of investors and from nowhere else. Authors expect to be paid, but that is a relatively new thing for the web - most platforms pay nothing. Authors need to remember that without investment there is nothing to pay them, period. Therefore, making improvements for investors is something that also helps authors.
Investors currently have no choice but to make a lot of posts or lose the value of their tokens. By improving curation rewards, the investors have ways of getting an ROI that doesn't involve having to endlessly invent meaningless things to post about. That is a good thing for the platform and for PROOF OF BRAIN.
Steem is based on proof of brain. If it doesn't work, then one of the main selling points is gone. Improving curation rewards 'could' improve the chances of proof of brain working again.
I agree that there is no guarantee that any of the claimed benefits of HF 21 will actually produce the intended results. It would be great to test them in advance, but that is not a simple thing to do. I would probably have pushed to have community features coded up first, so that we can then test out different curation/author splits in sub communities - solving many problems at once. But I am not a top 20 witness and not many people listen to me currently.
Steem is an evolving experiment. If the changes turn out to be terrible, then they can be reversed or improved.

There are many other things to be said, but I think maybe this covers the key points in this post. I am happy to respond to any questions/comments. Cheers!

$0.11

2 votes

[-]

snook (70) 7 years ago (edited)

I agree that there is no guarantee that any of the claimed benefits of HF 21 will actually produce the intended results. It would be great to test them in advance, but that is not a simple thing to do. I would probably have pushed to have community features coded up first, so that we can then test out different curation/author splits in sub-communities - solving many problems at once. But I am not a top 20 witness and not many people listen to me currently.

First Thank You for answering. 2nd. your 4th point I SO agree with!!!!!! This is the part that really makes no sense to me. You put my thoughts into a perfect explanation. Thank YOU for that!

Good Luck and much speed on your coding!

$0.07

3 votes

[-]

ura-soul (75) 7 years ago

Thanks!

$0.00

[-]

pjau (63) 7 years ago

I've wanted communities since I first heard about it early last year, it should have been top of the list of things to be done in my opinion, fucking around with curation values is not going to solve the Steem problem.

$0.04

2 votes

[-]