You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Game Theory In Reward Based Social Media Platforms
Great post and interesting thoughts.
If a 'unique' item is posted, then that has the ability to shock or entertain and therefore go viral, thereby breaking the mass or same-same material
I also wonder about the need on FB and steem for people to be the entertainment, ie the content producers.
Surely an audience should out number the actors by a factor of 10:1 or maybe 100:1
Which implies that viewers are far more important to a platform (or a concert hall) than actors.
Which would also imply that as a collective the viewers should be rewarded (as a group) at least as equally as actors.
But irrespective of rewards, without a strong & growing base of viewers the platform is doomed.
This is a potentially fatal flaw in the current steem logic IMHO
Thing is, the content creators are rewarded way much more than the viewers. And the irony is in the fact that the content is mostly recycled content from the viewers.
I agree.
I hate seeing a repost of something from Youtube with nothing added re explanation or context, just a rehash. If the steem plan is to swallow up YT I'm sure a bulk import routine could be written. (I'm not talking about say a News piece that uses YT link as reference material etc.)
Steem has an opportunity to turn media on its head and part of that is valuing readers as much or more then publishers (unlike current newspapers / social media etc)
A 50:50 is a good start. IMHO
but down the track I think readers should maybe yet 80 or 90% or the rewards.
Do we really want a blockchain full of "i did / ate this yesterday info"?
Is that stuff "valuable"? ie would I leave it for my grandkids?
If you played a great tune, or wrote a great artistic work that will go down in history as a "work of art" then that has "value" IMHO. Worth of 100's of people paying to look / watch etc.
So authors earn by producing and sharing in volume.
Readers earn by reading/providing time to review & provide opinion.
maybe I'm barking up wrong tree?
Time will tell!
I completely agree with you. While not entirely your point (rewarding "creators" and readers differently) you point out something I've noticed about steemit. I find much more enjoyment on a platform such as reddit than on steemit and I believe that the reason for that is in the comments.
On reddit, if one has something to say about a certain subject, one just goes to the comments and points it out. I've not been seeing that much on steemit, mainly (I suppose) because comments do not give as much money. The comments are usually the most interesting part of a reddit "discussion". Sadly that does not seem to exist here, atleast not to the extent I wanted.
I agree, the comments are the "discussion" of the original concept / idea.
And to me they hold value.
I don't profess to understand the details re "rewards", what I have seen are stats in regards to 50% of new users leaving. If 50% of new customers in my business didn't hang around, after I'd spent time & energy attracting them.... I would want to know why.
My 'guess' on that is the reward scheme is currently incorrectly focused to support platform growth (eg 400K -> 4m or 40m sort of growth) but maybe that is not the steemit plan? I don't know :-)
Indeed. Just like different authors take existing information and they modify the exact same content by synonyms and include their personal opinions. And voila,... New book edition/volume...
Concerning your post: Deep thinking and I appreciate this. I rarely see these type of people.
Notice that everything is a pyramid scheme. All organizations/insitutions...
The system we live in is a pyramid/ponzi scheme. That's why we at the bottom work endlessly and often with no result and the ones on top just have to sit and wait to get it.