This is a new form of circle jerk that maxes curation, takes from all the other authors (so basically reward pool rape), and the conversion math is totally off.
This is not saving STEEM but damaging this platform; a very short-sighted attempt..
Why don't you support more authors with your strong votes @smartsteem, @therealwolf, @tombstone, @reflektor, @xpilar, @tipu, @hingsten, @holger80 and everybody else?
I agree with you about maxing curation and jerking the reward pool, not to mention how these posts look to outsiders/newcomers, and I suspect this is mainly about making money (for most participants) under HF21 newsteem rules. I personally don't know what the math says about it.
But I have to say that xpilar and friends are actually doing much good on the blockchain, for example helping Mission Agua Possible and other very worthy causes that are struggling to make progress. So it's certainly not all black and white but a more complex gray area.
maybe @thecryptodrive might describe how it all works
@captainklaus @drutter @xpilar I will reply to you all in one message, so @sbdpotato has two sources of funding, the post rewards and the sps proposal, it only just recently went into funded status. The debt ratio in the posts is based off the api provided by witness @cervantes and is the most accurate, all debt ratio calculations will be lagging 3.5 days in arrears due to the conversion period. we are still far off getting rid of enough SBD, according to @smooth we need to get rid of another 900K SBD to restore the peg as of today's price drop.
@sbdpotato can convert this much likely in 6 months with SPS proposal funding alone, additional post rewards funding helps shorten that period. I know it is a balancing act and authors want as much as they can get for themselves out of the rewards pool but at the end of the day when the price of SBD rises, STEEM will generally follow and everyone, authors and whales alike will benefit.
We just need to put up with some temporary discomfort on the trending page, I don't think it looks bad to the outsiders because it shows outside investors we are actively trying to fix our economics and the community is behind it.
Regarding buying SBD on exchanges, that is not as easily coded and having everything happen internally is more transparent and visible. I certainly won't have any community funds flow through my personal exchange accounts, I run this project pro-bono for the good of the community, I'm one of the only ones looking to fix our economics and mostly just get complaints. A few posts on trending to fix SBD in a few months is a fair price to pay.
I hope this satisfies the queries.
I have no doubt some of these things are done in good faith, by people who care about STEEM. I am simply trying to state my opinion, which is that you are not seeing the bigger picture and the collateral. There are things beyond numbers.
I am suspicious if the (quite large) grey area is argued with 'much likely in 6 months', 'we just need to put up with' and better solutions not being 'that easily coded'.
I think this ignores how fragile STEEM is, how important it is to motivate users and retain newcomers.
And I am of the opinion that these rewards should go to creators who are at the base (and shouldn't be at the bottom) of this economy, and surely need some motivation.
I am also sure that, while these initiatives come across as something to do for the good of STEEM, most of the people wouldn't vote if they didn't reap huge rewards!
Good solutions are usually also elegant solutions. This definately is not.
I will not continue to argue, me and many others made their point. And you continue as you like, this is the freedom we enjoy here, and at least we had a discussion.
over & out ;)
As I replied above, the claim of maxing curation is just a misconception. But I do agree with you that it isn't a question of black or white and reasonable people can disagree on what is best for the platform (and I very much respect when people are able to recognize gray areas).
Disagreement is entirely fair, and that's why we have: a) the ability of anyone to post whatever they think helps the platform, and b) the ability of anyone to vote up or down on such posts.
You are mistaken. Repeat posts like this don't max curation, in fact they tend to minimize it (due to the reverse auction system designed explicitly for this purpose).
People voting for this are mostly doing it because they think the initiative is a good idea, and is helpful to the platform, not to earn curation, which could easily be increased with minimal effort by finding some other post that is not obvious abuse and voting for that one instead.
You are welcome to disagree with that subjective view but you should understand what is going on before criticizing it.
Thanks for coming back @smooth.
quote taken from the last post.
(@burnpost (which you maybe are not affiliated with, but is part of what started this discussion) is the real game if it comes to maxing curation).
We also discussed mentioning voting much later, to keep the posts out of trending. No mention of that, even though this is a concern for many.
The quote is correct. By voting you earn some curation rewards, but they certainly aren't the best.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to give up all curation rewards to make a vote which directs rewards to the benefit of the entire platform/community/economy, when they could not only get curation rewards by voting for something else (including by self-voting, vote-trading, or vote-selling), but easily get more curation rewards.
Once again, I must disagree on this point. @burnpost gets many votes (often 50-80% of the total votes that it gets altogether) within the first 1-3 minutes which means between 40% and 80% of curation rewards on those votes is being returned to the pool. Later votes get low curation rewards because the curation reward formula does not pay much to late votes. This is exactly how the curation system is supposed to work on predictable high-payout posts, whether they are @burnpost, or just an author with a big following. Voters have a choice of some (low) curation rewards for low effort or even autovotes, but to earn higher curation rewards, requires at least a little effort, sometimes a lot.
As I mentioned earlier, it would be pretty easy to increase curation rewards from what is earned here or on burnpost, just by finding any post, even more or less at random, which is not obvious abuse and has some sort of content value, and voting on that instead.
I'm working on a revamp of the template and will include that.
Things have been moving closer to the peg recently; I'm positive it will not take too long and all this effort to fix the peg will be superfluous.
In general there seems to be a faction that trusts the things as they are, and a faction that wants to meddle, which is totally ok with me, I just do not think it has any important upside, and it's tough to watch that many votes ending up there.
And yes, revamp that template, please; this has been a good option (almost a compromise) for some time already. It would also show more willingness to react to criticism.
Hi @captainklaus
Before you accuse anyone here of supporting the project, you must submit your mathematical calculations here
The math has been discussed a lot already (e.g. the need to buy SBD from external exchange).
The psycho math, how that is/feels/looks for other users and newcomers is also quite obvious.
Maybe upvoting some #introduceyourself posts instead, would do this platform quite some good. Do you know what an amazing boost for motivation (to stay) a strong vote can be?
Well, you're not answering my question.
I support many here and yes I know how encouraging it is for everyone to get a good upvote. I expect you have looked at my Voting CSI?
There is zero need to buy on external exchanges. If you buy on the internal exchange, arbitrage bots can and will take that buying pressure and transmit it to other (external) exchanges (in short, they buy up SBD externally and then sell it to SBD buyers on the internal exchange). This has been the case almost since the first day the internal exchange went live.