In a grand vision of Steem where millions of people are playing Splinterlands, sharing pictures on Appics, posting reviews on SteemHunt, logging their workout on Actifit, and so much more - all of which are using their own tokens with their own individual economies powered by Steem - does the curation split or reward curve of the STEEM token really matter?
Thank you for speaking up as the current #1 witness and probably as one of the best ones we got. The above doesn't matter at all in the bigger picture and it's distracting from current goals Steemit inc. explicit said have more priority.
One other point on the EIP is that it might make content discovery better. But considering this is an app-specific blockchain I fail to see what that has to do with apps.
Also, nobody knows 'for sure' what will happen and the 'hope' is that people will change their behavior. But none of this matters long term because apps will have their own token and economics.
But what if instead of making the current economics better it turns out to make it worse. Is this thought even considered in the decision-making process? Wouldn't that be something? What kind of message would that send and how much time will be spent fixing that.
Predicting human behavior by changing rules is extremely difficult. Just because we can control computer code doesn't mean we can control irrational/emotional human behavior.
If we can show the world that we have the potential to become the leading platform for websites and apps that want to take advantage of blockchain and crypto, I believe that the valuation of the STEEM token will quickly rise up to where it should be in comparison with other blockchain platforms with similar metrics.
With Splinterlands you guys are sure showing that. Thanks for that and thanks for being a witness for Steem.
I didnt understand how that is going to happen? Will people upvote better content more? Will the bigger accounts stop upvoting friends and upvote other people? I have only ever seen a few curators do that and it is not easy being a curator. And ofc the curation teams like Dtube, Curie, OCD.
Why will normal people start curating good content now instead of just voting friends that will vote them back?
I was a curie curator for a couple months and even though it was fun at first that job is very hard and can get very boring.
It will give extra incentives to properly evaluate content. Don't really want to get into details here, but it's not really throwing darts at a board as many people are claiming. The steem system needs tweaks to motivate better behaviors, and a functional system will actually get us very far. Everyone is so anchored to their ways and resist change. To be fair, many believe the changes may be too much, but I think that they are in the right direction and well motivated. Equilibrium will shift, and will attack the behavior it is designed to attack (you can read some thoughts about the specifics in my blog if you want).
To reply to a specific comment in the main blog,
It does matter. Proponents of EIP are saying exactly that better economics will get us a better platform. Yes, we are building good bridges into other types of systems and that can happen in parallel, but the biggest one of all: Steem, could use some TLC. We can push for changes that improve both the main system and encourage SMTs.
Keep in mind, it's not actually that much more time to incorporate these changes, compared to other goals. So I say tweak them. The whole mechanism is a game, and like any other game, it needs balance changes over time to correct the meta.
So in essence, please don't bring new people to the platform, because only thing they will be able to do is leave. big acc, that we want to change their behavior, will not vote for them because, well why vote them when they know it could be that only few minnows will also vote for them. minnows should find 10 acc that have a decent content with a bit of organic votes, and some whales votes and just autovote for them. minnows voting for small acc will just be impossible, with a lot of 0 if they do.
in short term, punishing thousents because of hundred.
Even after reading all bunch about this, and reading your posts that are really well written, i could be wrong, and i would really want to know why am i wrong. because i only got 1 answer on this, and it was everyone will benefit with more curation, how do you not see that, you are just blind.
So because of how curation works, auto voting 10 popular posts is not a good strategy in general. If you are not first, the share of curation you are getting is not going to be that great. And you can auto vote earlier and earlier to sacrifice curation to find a sweet spot. But if everyone is doing it, you may really find that you're not left with much. You'll get something, but actually you get more if you discover a new post, and share it with others and get them to vote too.
The problem with thinking about 50/50 and lower end cuts is that even though on paper it just sounds like a pay cut for the little posts, it may not work that way once people actually start seeking out content due to the increased incentives (the curation curve is key here, because "just auto vote" is really not that great of a strategy), as well as penalties for keeping lazy behavior (which is what I've focused my posts about).
I'm not sure if I've fully addressed your concerns, because it's not going to be perfect by any means. But essentially, penalizing "lazy behavior" forces alternative considerations, and that will have cascading effects. Is it enough? Will it work? I can't guarantee it.
It's not obvious at all, and even worse is that it's not guaranteed, so you do have a point to be concerned.
Posted using Partiko Android
so the premise is that people who now just upvote themselves will now look for new undiscovered content and also share it with other people to convince them to vote. not really seeing this, but hope i am wrong.
i suck at this nevertheless and vote for things that i like when ever so i will probably just get less, but who cares... need to stop reading about this.
Thanks for the effort.
You do not suck at this, except if 'this' is ignoring common sense and believe BS.
Common sense reveals that almost all the rewards pool now goes to profiteers, and not content creators, and this easily explains why Steem has such a dismal retention rate. Since extracting the rewards from the business of Steem, which is creating content that attracts a market for Steem, that in turn creates capital gains, instead extracts the value that would create capital gains, all the proposals in the EIP will make that profiteering more profitable more rapidly, by creating a modified rewards curve that increases the rewards for bigger votes, and doubling curation rewards, which only matter to whales.
Common sense, which you have, tells you exactly what is going to happen under EIP. Only folks bemused by code instead of actual business, or rabidly intent on profiteering, can miss this common sense.
Trust your gut.
i feel that this change heavily depends on downvotes and if everyone will downvote the "bad behavior" it could maybe work. but then when you think about the downvote you will think about "judge not if you are not ready for judgment" "before you point your fingers, make sure your hands are clean" and the throw the first stone thing.
And what is bad behaviour?
If my political views are not favoured by you, I must be flagged? For instance I saw someone get trashed (by a bot) because he mentioned an article by Alex Jones.
I'm just wondering who is going to trash the very big accounts because their posts are crappy? Just because someone got in early and built up their SP, it does not mean they are worthy steemians. If they are exempted, then how can steemit improve? (ahhh, but they are making the big delegations to the flag bots, so not likely they will be trashed, is it?)
The reason for most people not flagging is they don't want to be flagged back. It's not that they lack VP to flag. It's that they lack the SP to withstand being retaliated against. Free flags won't change that. It'll make Bernie fly more flags though.
I dont know. Im just not convinced by this change. I would love if bots would stop and people would curate more but it feels like it will cost too much. I heard there will also be something called the SPS that will reduce author rewards even more.
I would love for curators to earn more but losing 30-40% of my rewards plus the 10% dtube already takes is scary to me. I dont want to lose motivation now that i started posting consistently.
You say to Bil.prag:
If that is true, and to earn as much as now i would have to have 30$ posts instead of 15$, how can i expect that it will increase that much if curators wont want to upvote me because the curation share will be bad?
Well that's the balance. They have to predict what will be popular, that isn't popular already. If they see it should be worth more then it makes sense for them to vote on it. So if you are already popular I don't really see that as a worry.
Also, big picture: if the reward pool is being used more efficiently, then it is producing value and everything will be worth more. So it really is hard to say.
This is how i feel after reading everything. :D
But honestly, i really dont want to lose what i have now. I dont use bots and i work hard on my content. I see someone say i will have my rewards reduced by 40% and i cant feel happy with that.
Even you write about what is popular what is not, what is efficient and what is not but i only know for sure that i will have reduced earnings. :(
I can't say that that's true "for sure". But I also can't deny that it's possible. But the efforts to adjusts incentives is an honest one, and it's just not accurate when people paint it as "stealing from the poor" or "stealing from the authors".
It is not stealing because how reward pool functions but it does look like "changing where river flows."
Oh well we will see how it goes. ☺
In the original HF21 article I read, there was the comment that 50/50 is not good enough, it should be Curators 80% and authors 20%, but it is better we do not do it now, let everyone get used to the reduced rewards and at the next HF go for it.
It is just like the outside world. The Big Tech mentality is alive and well in here.
Trust your gut and don't be baffled by BS. The principles of business and investment are simple. Profiteers today receive almost all the rewards, leaving creators such as you and I less than 10% of it. EIP will increase the profits of profiteers by 40%.
What does you gut tell you will happen?
Even more of the value of Steem will be extracted before it increases the value of the underlying investment vehicle, Steem, and the price of Steem will crash. Millions of Steem are now being powered down to sell before the crash.
You know what will happen, because you have common sense. EIP is designed to extract as quickly as possible all the value from Steem so that it can be sold as quickly as possible. @steem is powering down.
Trust your gut. Don't be baffled by BS.
That is a very bleak future you see. I will wait a bit and see what happens. I dont think those that proposed the system would want to destroy their own investment.
When writing becomes visible on walls, even if you don't grasp the basic reasons it got there, you can act to avoid even more harm. That's what I think is the case here. The lolbertarian devs know code, but have no experience investing. They came up with unlimited manipulation via stake to impact quality of content because that made sense to them, and people project their grasp and morals on others.
They may yet not recognize that the idea can't work because folks are far more likely to simply maximize their immediate financial returns, rather than care about what the manipulation mechanism - people's posts and comments - say. The constant failure of the idea of whale curation simply doesn't leap their cognitive bias and enable them to grasp reality in this matter. That's really the least scathing speculation I can come up with to explain the present circumstances.
While that may create exactly the situation I predict: a crash in the price of Steem and profiteers bailing, that isn't necessarily the death of Steem. It could be just a setback pricewise, and allow investing experienced or more rational devs to gain the ability to implement sound code that does encourage investment. In the long run, that would be very beneficial and the incredible potential of Steem to form a basis for incorruptible votes on every issue while simultaneously providing funding could create a real form of government that hasn't existed before.
I'm here for the free speech, and that doesn't appear to have been sold off with the marketing department. I'll hang on and see what happens too.
The value of the time of whales is better spent on their business than fine-tuning their rewards. All they have to do under this - or any tweak to rewards along these lines - is delegate to a bot and exert 0 effort to fine tune their profiteering to extract almost all of the rewards from the pool.
The bidbot owners take care of everything for them. All they have to do is sell their profits on the market, and continue to crash the price of Steem.
That's what will continue to happen, only it will happen faster with a modified exponential rewards curve, and doubling curation rewards. EIP is the last rush to extract the value left in Steem which there is presently a race to sell before the price crashes. Then the profiteers will move on to the next target.
That's what profiteers do.
They can, but they still lose compared to now with the new rules. There's a lot of shifting that will happen especially with 50/50 and dealing with the leakage to external curation votes, and incentives to move away from bid bots, and the potential downvotes is even more motivation. Yes, they'll do their best, but they are actually being penalized compared to now.
They're going to get ~40% more of the remaining rewards they don't already extract before it increases the value of Steem. Almost all rewards now go to whales, with creators splitting less than 10%. Double curation rewards, and create a modified exponential rewards curve, then add a tax on rewards on creators, and, oh, hey, let's give flaggots free downvotes too.
The downvote pool doesn't acknowledge that what keeps most folks from flagging isn't VP cost. It's retaliation. Small stakeholders can be crushed by flaggots, and i've seen it happen more than once. Bernie will get more flags for free though.
None of that addresses the fact that investors are encouraged by potential capital gains, and with almost all the rewards being extracted by whales before the value can increase the price of Steem, there is no reasonable basis to expect capital gains. Hedge funds aren't in the business of self voting, or delegating to bidbots for their returns. They seek capital gains, and Steem can't give them any as configured, and EIP is making that worse.
And how do you imagine they will be getting 40% more? These principles already take into account maximizing behaviors. Unless you tell me the top X whales all agree to indiscriminately downvote everyone else, which I highly doubt. If you are a whale, and are just playing maximization, your incentive is to downvote other highly valued posts, presumably made by another whale, rather than small fish.
{Keep in mind, it's not actually that much more time to incorporate these changes} cool i like your answer,
hey , can anyone explain this ?
https://steemit.com/steem/@smidge-tv/after-exposing-berniesanders-kawaiicrush-suddenly-lost-all-rc-credits-wow