You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Update on Simplicity: Cutting Complexity with Steem 0.17.0
I disagree with these:
- Standardized payouts on a 7 day timer
- Comment reward pool
Neutral
- keep n^2 for longer time
Others are OK.
//Edit: The point is to bring author reward beneficiaries and SP delegation this time. If it's too hard to decide a curve, we can keep it unchanged for a while.
Instead of the 7 day timer they could just change the
24h+30days >>>>> 24h+7days
and my opinion is the author:curator reward ratio should reverse...
The curators should take the most rewards since the curators are hundreds (or potentially thousands in future) but the author of a post still only one (authors will continue to take the lion share)
Seems like the best option to me. And for long-term revenue to authors, then can simply add a tipping function/option to posts. It would make tipping more intuitive, at the very least.
@busy.org has a pull request of that.
EXACTLY THIS ^^^^
The best option to me, is to pay every 7 days or so.
Well, they're not going to do perpetual payouts, so that's not really in the cards. And one seven day period is too long, considering nobody votes after the first few hours most of the time anyway. A 48 or 72-hour period should be the max for the initial payout. Seven days is just too long and arbitrarily so. What's the point of seven day payouts, anyway?
In the real world (where bloggers aren't mining steem) most people post a blog weekly. Probably because they don't expect all their readers in one day, their readers come different days of the week.
7 days gives gives curators more time to catch up on the content they like without "missing out" on the opportunity to add their vote (which is useless in the 30 day period)
Won't it also create a one-time, seven-day pause in reward payments? I wonder if we will see any reaction in Steem price. Not important, but maybe interesting.
Scalability problem because with posts remaining active forever the consensus dataset grows quickly?
Fair concern.
While not in favor of that much of split I do think curation rewards need to be higher... 75/25 is not nearly enough to make curation really worthwhile for most people or to really encourage many people to vote. Especially since early voters forgo some of that curation which makes the actual curation split somewhere in the low teens...
An author/curator split of something like 60/40 seems like it could work. It might still not be enough but it would be better. Some say that curation is not needed while I feel that curation is a great incentivisor to get the most people to vote...
Good points by the way about the curators being hundreds/thousands of people vs. a single author... hadn't thought about it like that before.
and don't forget that people that vote the first 30 minutes give more rewards to authors... so it isn't 75:25 but rather 88:12 !!! So a reverse make absolute sense because for the same reason it would not be 25:75 but about 38:62 (author:curators)
Unless the 30 minute penalty was also adjusted or thrown out :)
there was a discussion to adjust to 5-15 minutes...
throwing out would once again favor too much the bots I suppose
Curation is needed, but not the curation rewards. I, for one, would vote without curation rewards, and I think many of us would do.
I would too. I'm unconviced that curation rewards are the main incentive for voting, however often it is repeated; it is untested theory. It is the main incentive for using voting bots and otherwise gaming the system without caring about content. Another experiment to test the theory, perhaps?
Completely agree, curation rewards rewards bot voting much more than actual curation, making curation what it is right now: 10:1 ratio in some cases of votes to views. That alone is disparaging to any new user when they are obviously confronted with the fact that "people" vote for content that they haven't even read, and the other aspect that @beanz was arguing is that clearly it makes everyone compete with machines, and following that to the conclusion is that to compete with a machine you have to employ a machine. Remove curation rewards as people have incentive to vote and reward authors and it removes incentive to vote for rewards. Voting/curating is a fine endeavor but not necessarily worthy of any rewards, the rewards come intrinsically not extrinsically from allocating whatever portion your vote can from the reward pool.
Content is king.
Wasnt it already that way at one point...?
Yeah, I think people are really going to miss the 24 hour payout. People really want instant gratification. Especially new users who think the platform is too good to be true.
"SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!" says the new user.
Now it will take 7 days to prove to them that Steemit's not a scam, LOL instead of 24 hours. I hope they remember to login a week later to check.
I remember waiting on the edge of my seat for my very first payout to see whether this was actually real or not.
But I'm all for experimenting so I haven't really voiced this opinion too loudly and I assume there's a good reason for getting rid of it... I just haven't heard it yet.
I can chime here as a new user...(brings popcorn for everyone and shares)
I have to say that I have noticed an increase of STEEM & SP rewards in the last day (24hours).
I cannot verify exactly if it is because of this experiment.
Just my 3cents worth.
It's hard to verify because of the nonlinear reward curve. Now, if others voted before you, (it seems) your votes worth more. Actually, I, who have been here since a half year, noticed the same (my votes worth more). Even when I upvote promoted contents with @pipes, which is a new account, I see some changes in the rewards (and nothing before).
Man, this experiment with the whole Steemit Platform is exciting and addicting. I am very Honored to have this opportunity to witness, take part, vote, comment, & continually learn and grow with the company. A lot of GREAT, POWERFUL, and WISE users on this platform, if you are keen to spot them...(notice I didn't have to actually say anything about my pay or a salary)
Just my 3cents worth again...
I can second this, the rewards are far more spread out than before.
"Show me the money" is true, but 1 week has its benefits.
And as I see
everyonemuch stake is used to upvote new users. If they don't interested in enough to wait a week for that, next time when they get nothing for their post they will leave, or exchange to BTC then leave, or cry a little about justice then leave.1 week is simpler, and one could have more rewards then with a split period when a nonlinear reward curve is used. Now, at the end of the day, when a minnow's vote is starting to change the reward, the system starts the whole process again with a 30 days period that nobody uses because the votes worth nothing (those, who could fill up the shallow part of the curve have already voted as curators in the first period with a bot with perfect timings).
With one week, there is more room for the investors to act when the rewards are different from what they would want.
How much longer? IMO part and parcel of keeping it for a longer time is the very strong possibility/likelihood that it falls through the cracks entirely.
The point is to bring reward beneficiaries and SP delegation this time. If it's too hard to decide a curve, we can keep it unchanged for a while.
Everyone wants a flat curve, why too hard to decide?
I don't know. They didn't answer. Or I missed it.
why keep n^2 longer when the majority don't want it?
Change one thing at one time.
I would suggest we start then with n^2 change...
^ this
^^^^^^^ @ned and @sneak, Evidently the community agrees, this comes first.