You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Should We Raise Curation Rewards From 25/75 To 50/50?
Voted for
- No
No because the Author does the work on the content. The whole argument of value on Steemit is based about the value of content,so I don't understand why you'd want to give half of the content writers pay to the audience. think 25% is a fair take for the audience & ensures money circulates back into the ecosystem. Oh, & I don't even post anymore so this doesn't affect me. The only problem that anyone should be worried about here, is how lame Steemit has become. Audiences are bored and so I don't even tell people about this place anymore, it smells of old socks & dungeon-dwelling programmers
Yeah... this seems imbalanced to me... 50/50... because clicking a mouse button means you should get more and the author less. Not all authors are the same or put in the same amount of work, but anyways, clicking a mouse button, or autovoting and doing nothing, needs to be kept in mind. If the voter likes the content, great, then they get what they wanted: content. Getting curation rewards is a nice extra when all you need to do is click a mouse button and nothing else, even not look at the content if you don't want to... ;) Just click a button to get some rewards back for that action... I like to look at the work being done, and creating content demands more work than clicking a mouse button.
Ya I don't disagree with that. I just point out why curate when I can sell my vote? If you want curation to happen at scale then you must incentive curators to upvote others and not incentive self upvoting. But maybe selling votes and self upvoting being top of the list isn't a bad idea, not saying know. If people are willing to buy votes then there is demand for the eyeballs here.
Changing to 50/50 would just get the vote buying to change how they charge for what % to 'ROI' give, while the delegators and owners would make even more than they do now. That's the outcome I see. Vote buying would continue,a s long as they adjusted and still provided a positive return for the amount of money sent out.
If people want to buy votes, it's not about eyeballs. It's about making more money. Thats why the bots calculate their votes based on money sent to give an ROI that's positive, not negative. Would people use ocdb if the return was negative? Would they use any of the many other bots? Maybe a few would, but that would be the people who are willing to actually spend money to get more eyeballs by reaching a high enough payout to get the eyeballs (like $100). Buying votes to get your post at $10, $20, or even $50 isn't getting anyone any more eyeballs. You have to spend a lot more. That's when it has an effect on the trending page. The majority who buy votes are doing it to get an ROI in a rigged voting scheme-platform where you can just pay to get more rewards. THAT is what makes Steem a sad joke imo.
And you curate, or anyone else, because you care to reward content you value, which is how the whole system is supposed to work (and in exchange you get rewards too, curation rewards). That's when the platform gains more value, when the content is rewarded because its valued by curators. Again, vote sellers just want to make easy money by doing 0-actions, if they cared about rewarding content they would be doing that. And vote buyers want more money because curators aren't curating them, they have to buy votes to get rewards, not earn them.
@ocdb is different from most other bots as it is not content agnostic. You need to be whitelisted by getting curated by the OCD curation team. Secondly, they can throw you out if you buy too large votes for low quality content. @ocdb is a both a curation and distribution bot. It is designed to distribute stake to authors who put in some effort to create decent content.
And with higher curation rewards I believe these projects will be more in demand.
@ocdb aims to give vote buyers 10% in profit. Delegators 90%. Because the bot gets paid liquid STEEM or SBD by vote buyers, it is already easy to adjust the share of profits.
@tarazkp wrote a post about his experiences on Smoke.io where he curates. Smoke is a Steem clone with 50/50 split.
belgium.netrelay.com
The link you shared leads to a site that looks like STEEMIT but is not. This could be seen as a phishing attempt. Please remove or change the link.
Thanks a lot! I searched for the post by googling it and just copied the link. There must be false profiles out there. I've changed the link.
Vote selling platforms as it is already give 100% of the curation and take a small cut off the top. I don't see how they would earn more. Also, curation on bidbots or vote sellers is not good because it isn't timed well, it's used to vote on content that has already been widely upvoted. Most people don't upvote content after they seen it has been already boosted by bidbots, so they usually are some of the last upvotes meaning the tail end of the rewards.
And you're right, people curate because they care. But also, investors curate because they have to, if not they are missing out on Steem they could be earning. Right now as an investor I have to choose between delegating to projects, selling votes, self upvoting, curation (manual/auto). I believe most investors will choose to delegate to projects, but some just want to just get as much Steem ROI as possible because they believe Steem is undervalued.
Tell me of another crypto out there that lets you get more of it by simply click a button or autovoting without looking at the content? None. Yet, what they do get isn't enough, so the greed has them wanting more. Or doing the work of voting isn't desirable when they can do 0-work and still get more crypto by delegation and getting returns that way.
If only merit mattered, where the merit of earning rewards was based on actually evaluating content to reward it, proof of brain. And because you value it, you get a reward too for valuing what others have put forth. It was a great idea, but the greed of wanting more or wanting to get the most with the least work, has us where we are now.
Yeah, ppl can just upvote authors they know buy votes, and its just a badnwagon effect of piling on for curation rewards, regardless of content.
Would it be so bad if patronizing bid bots no longer becomes profitable?
50/50 doesnt solve the whole issue we're facing now but IMO its a good start.
I completely agree that bidbots and voteselling needs to be in our rearview mirror. I reckon a better mechanism for enabling stakeholders to get a return on their holdings exists, and @steemalliance and the DAO @blocktrades has completed should be that vehicle. We need to create a vector for dividends stakeholders can receive for delegating to development.
Instead of simply gaming the rewards pool and extracting ROI without contributing to the curation of valuable content, or development improving the investment vehicle (Steem), this would make their returns on their investments beneficial to all, by promoting capital gains - which has been the traditional incentive for investors since before we have historical records.
I have just posted a concept that needs community input to become a proposal, but the bones of that idea are in an extemporaneous comment in reply to @kevinwong above.
If you want to know what I think I made a video here with open discussion. https://steemit.com/dtube/@theycallmedan/ptb813uc
If a shop lowers the price on their product and ended up with more sales, is that a loss?
We're talking about Steem the blockchain not Steemit the website. Also, I believe @theycallmedan is doing this exactly because Steem has become "lame". the way things are now does not work and it's high time we explore this proposal that has been talked about for the pass 2-3 years.
No the User make the Work. If you have none read your Stuff is like worthless. Look in google if you are on Site 2. Its worthless. So people help you to share and reward your Voice have more Work. Think about if you real curate, you have to read a Ton of Stuff and Reward the best one.
IF you a a Author you want people to read your Stuff.