With every new development or initiative on the blockchain, there have been promises made that are still far from being met. We are still faced with a plethora of problems that existed some years back. Maybe I'm not well abreast on the potentials of the SMTs that's why I'm a bit skeptical. But I reserve my comments till then. I want the best for the blockchain and if SMT is the way forward then so be it. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed.
The most important question now, for me, is how SMTs will affect small accounts like mine. You might say that is selfish and maybe it is. I'm looking after my interest and that of the blockchain but mine a little more
At the moment whaleshares is giving the most to content creators. So yes I agree with you there. I'm really not sure if Steemit inc is pro-Content Creators. It seems more as many Stake holders want to implement some communist 50/50 system that would crush content creators in the long game.
I'm so tired of lazy entitled high stake holders that has too much free time and comes up with: "You know what would be great? Let's take 25% more from the already poor content creators! They never detect it.. let's just say to them that the system is broken and that we have a fix" They try to sneak it in at the moment. So produce on whaleshares atm I would say. You will earn Stake 15-19x faster.
I tried opening one recently but I dunno, I did not get the said email notification. I would like to experiment on other platforms, but steem is where I want to make my home.
On a lighter note, I support one of those communist pushings for the 50/50. He has done a lot for me in terms of upvotes but I do not agree with the 50/50 reward ratio proposal. It will not solve the fundamental problems here, rather it will increase and there will be more rewards for these said bidbots. I don't speak codes but common sense tells me: more curation rewards, more incentive to rape the reward pool
At the moment whaleshares is giving the most to content creators.
lol
It seems more as many Stake holders want to implement some communist 50/50 system that would crush content creators in the long game.
How are content creators better off with no curation at all? How did you not learn anything by being all over the posts where this has been discussed?
Please make your own posts if you want to shill a fork with retarded inflation and no liquidity in the markets. Don't buy bid bots on comments to get the visibility on someone else's post.
It's amazing how much anti-capitalism is going on in here. Can Steem thrive with being anti-capitalism? I don't think so. To think people have a hidden agenda when they give a tip...
Do you really think I wrote that to "shill" something? Just lol, I always speak from my heart. If I tip someone and someone comes and steals that away well I have a hard time to see it thrive in the long term. If it's anti-capitalism and panics over a small tip ---> Will fail, as it's not empowering anymore. But about policing every word to create a yes men comment section. That will completely make the whole place non-vibrant and boring. It becomes about "mine", instead of a shared thing.
And I'm not saying you don't need curators. But it's a logical fact that Content Creators is doing most of the work. Curation will mostly be automated. It's not many that do it manual. Even if they did they are doing 10x less energy spend than a content creators. Yes there are exceptions. But Creators they should have the most wealth. Or it's communism. History has proven communism always fails.
"How did you not learn anything by being all over the posts where this has been discussed?" I wrote a 300-400 word comment to smooth. Never got a reply, @lordbutterfly still has authority on this question as he has been writing the most clear way why it will fail. He also never got a reply. That tells me everything I need to know. People care more about their Stake than human relationships and empower creators. Click upvote and only give around 50% is not a loving act. It's a selfish act as you know you get most back.
What I see is Stake holders getting pissed off at a few dollars here and there. They should be in thriving mode. Not realising that it will cause a brain drain effect as it's leech energy.
What will happen is low effort content creators + high stake holders will win. They want to cut off the healthy upcoming Middle Class of Content Creators.
I think you acidyo is one of the best high Stake holders in terms of integrity, but in the end I don't think this place can thrive on other high stake holders as human behaviour shows most will be selfish. You are not but the majority is. 50% would make it 10x worse.
Well this would sure change the game if you had moderators.
That would put content creators as the highest authority. By putting content creators at a higher authority than what it currently is. Now it's just that people create whatever without really focusing on 1 niche or community. As those systems hasn't been built. So at the moment it only exist Stake holders that are a bit over powered and then smaller content creator accounts at a few thousand Steem.
It all comes down to making it a bit more serious then and have people in proper roles. And that all play their role well. With the current system it's just a game where everyone tries to grab a big slice with no accountability. But then it seems still that a proper system is at least a couple of years away. I do agree that ideally 50/50 could work potentially in the future and as people reach a higher level of abundance. But with the current way things are being run I would say stick to 75/25. People will surely just automate more with a current 50/50 plan.
And I can get a feel of many high Stake holders that they are not really caring that much about real content and never will. They only have limited Tokens. Content Creators have limitless material. They are what creates the magic, they are what pulls in people to the system. When you empower these content creators a long time and nurture them they will be the best authority to curate new material. As they have earned their role and position. They have made themselves vulnerable by producing something real.
A content creator has usually way more influence than a high stake holder as they daily can create new connections with others that has invested equal buy-in. I am still very skeptical about a high stake holders that wonders about ROI every single second when they already have enough to live in abundance for the rest of their life. Clearly the highest ROI is to invest in people producing quality content and leverage human energy.
Lavish abundance should be re-invested into people with massive buy-in and that can master leverage. I'm just too worried 50/50 would create more mediocre stuff. When I came into Steem Jan 2018, it was the lavish abundance of a dtube vote that made me invest thousands. If 50% would have been taken away I'm not really sure if I would have had buy-in. Some content creators are a million times better than others. So they should have way more for that. As that will inspire others to act the same and aim up. People have always loved the idea of a hero.
Yes this is very much true! Thanks for a great logical comment that covered some stuff I never would have thought about. This is what makes up big value on a Blockchain. Real comments with great input.
I see what you did here trying to take credit for the above comment XD This comment from @kendrahill is not talking about the same system as High Stake holders is talking about. This comment is talking about more empowerment to content creators hands. If you make 50/50 system wrong then it will surely end up in communist system with lots of low effort stuff be produced.
Especially this part is talking about more empowerment to content creators:
But if you just make a system where High Stake holders can run wild then it will surely cause Chaos.
If you are just taking this out:
You are taking it out of context. The context above is extremely relevant. Or else distortion effects will very easily be created.
Also about your comment "@smooth didn't reply to me", just because someone stops responding to me doesn't mean you have a great debate going or that you won the argument.
If you really wanted to tip someone for their comment then do so through the tipping system, not changing the order of comments through bid bot votes on comments and then proceed to shill another blockchain knowing your reply is at the top.
I don't just filter my comment section based on people that agree with me or give me compliments else I wouldn't have voted up his comment asking where this will place content creators and their rewards.
I don't really know how these changes are going to effect the platform but anything than what we got now will surely improve it.
Also it's quite obvious that content creators are being paid too much, this is of course not for everyone because of how the reward pool works some people are gaming it to make the most themselves which to them seems like low effort earnings considering content creators and witnesses are right now the biggest sellers of Steem, not curators.
Not to mention the value of this content that is rewarded here being posted somewhere else would not get a fraction of the rewards, not to mention we aren't even generating any income through ads nor do 99% of people bother sharing their own content onto other platforms to generate traffic.
A 50/50 rewards model would result in high-quality-content creators being rewarded the most, while low-quality-content creators find great difficulty.
A 50/50 split creates a competitive environment, standards are raised, content creators put more thought and effort into their creations, the platform becomes a source of great content that will attract people from around the world
See, thats exactly whats wrong with this proposal. It makes people jump to what could be best described as the "most intuitive conclusion" without actually having to look deeper into their arguments.
Its great that you have a lot of faith in "humanity" but the facts point into another direction.
We need to try and analyze behavior patterns before making such a drastic change.
Im sorry to say but not a single thing you said here is likely to happen.
Whats "high quality" and whats "low quality"?
Standards are raised? Why would they be raised? You reduce the payouts across the board and expect people to put in more effort?
The platform becomes a source of great content?
I appreciate your positive outlook but everything points in another direction..
Under 1. you just put all your faith into the hands of a few whale curators that might or might not know whats best. Might or might not increase their effectiveness. You widened the overall wealth gap between have and have nots.
Under 2. that standards will be raised? Not really. If people dont leave they are actually more likely to increase their content volume because you just cut their earnings. Instead of putting hard work into a 1-2 post/videos per day... They will put in less work per post and increase the number of posts made.
... high, low quality, etc, it doesnt matter. .. What matters is increased centralization in token distribution.
On the 3. point.... This proposal makes upvote buying cheaper and completely destroys the trending page. Trending will actually look far worse then it does now.
Unfortunately no one is willing to even consider that, because large accounts, even if they are nice enough to curate, like @acidyo here, the prospect of having such a big boost to earnings just closes their mind to any valid criticism. Witnesses follow in suite because these curation accounts are vocal and have indebted thousands of people with their work over these last 2 years..
Not until passive investors start taking back their witness votes will witness resolve start to buckle.
anyways...
What this proposal does is reduce earning potential for non-boting creators and increases earnings of large whale curators.. Small account curation efforts will not be changed even in the slightest since they earn nothing from curation. The passive investors will move their delegation away from bots, if they dont leave, will look for the next profit maximizing option which is vote selling.
Buying votes becomes cheaper and trending looks much worse then it does now.
You just made things 10 times worse.
With every new development or initiative on the blockchain, there have been promises made that are still far from being met. We are still faced with a plethora of problems that existed some years back. Maybe I'm not well abreast on the potentials of the SMTs that's why I'm a bit skeptical. But I reserve my comments till then. I want the best for the blockchain and if SMT is the way forward then so be it. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed.
The most important question now, for me, is how SMTs will affect small accounts like mine. You might say that is selfish and maybe it is. I'm looking after my interest and that of the blockchain but mine a little more
At the moment whaleshares is giving the most to content creators. So yes I agree with you there. I'm really not sure if Steemit inc is pro-Content Creators. It seems more as many Stake holders want to implement some communist 50/50 system that would crush content creators in the long game.
I'm so tired of lazy entitled high stake holders that has too much free time and comes up with: "You know what would be great? Let's take 25% more from the already poor content creators! They never detect it.. let's just say to them that the system is broken and that we have a fix" They try to sneak it in at the moment. So produce on whaleshares atm I would say. You will earn Stake 15-19x faster.
I tried opening one recently but I dunno, I did not get the said email notification. I would like to experiment on other platforms, but steem is where I want to make my home.
On a lighter note, I support one of those communist pushings for the 50/50. He has done a lot for me in terms of upvotes but I do not agree with the 50/50 reward ratio proposal. It will not solve the fundamental problems here, rather it will increase and there will be more rewards for these said bidbots. I don't speak codes but common sense tells me: more curation rewards, more incentive to rape the reward pool
Posted using Partiko Android
You are right!
lol
How are content creators better off with no curation at all? How did you not learn anything by being all over the posts where this has been discussed?
Please make your own posts if you want to shill a fork with retarded inflation and no liquidity in the markets. Don't buy bid bots on comments to get the visibility on someone else's post.
It's amazing how much anti-capitalism is going on in here. Can Steem thrive with being anti-capitalism? I don't think so. To think people have a hidden agenda when they give a tip...
Do you really think I wrote that to "shill" something? Just lol, I always speak from my heart. If I tip someone and someone comes and steals that away well I have a hard time to see it thrive in the long term. If it's anti-capitalism and panics over a small tip ---> Will fail, as it's not empowering anymore. But about policing every word to create a yes men comment section. That will completely make the whole place non-vibrant and boring. It becomes about "mine", instead of a shared thing.
And I'm not saying you don't need curators. But it's a logical fact that Content Creators is doing most of the work. Curation will mostly be automated. It's not many that do it manual. Even if they did they are doing 10x less energy spend than a content creators. Yes there are exceptions. But Creators they should have the most wealth. Or it's communism. History has proven communism always fails.
"How did you not learn anything by being all over the posts where this has been discussed?" I wrote a 300-400 word comment to smooth. Never got a reply, @lordbutterfly still has authority on this question as he has been writing the most clear way why it will fail. He also never got a reply. That tells me everything I need to know. People care more about their Stake than human relationships and empower creators. Click upvote and only give around 50% is not a loving act. It's a selfish act as you know you get most back.
What I see is Stake holders getting pissed off at a few dollars here and there. They should be in thriving mode. Not realising that it will cause a brain drain effect as it's leech energy.
What will happen is low effort content creators + high stake holders will win. They want to cut off the healthy upcoming Middle Class of Content Creators.
I think you acidyo is one of the best high Stake holders in terms of integrity, but in the end I don't think this place can thrive on other high stake holders as human behaviour shows most will be selfish. You are not but the majority is. 50% would make it 10x worse.
...
Well this would sure change the game if you had moderators.
That would put content creators as the highest authority. By putting content creators at a higher authority than what it currently is. Now it's just that people create whatever without really focusing on 1 niche or community. As those systems hasn't been built. So at the moment it only exist Stake holders that are a bit over powered and then smaller content creator accounts at a few thousand Steem.
It all comes down to making it a bit more serious then and have people in proper roles. And that all play their role well. With the current system it's just a game where everyone tries to grab a big slice with no accountability. But then it seems still that a proper system is at least a couple of years away. I do agree that ideally 50/50 could work potentially in the future and as people reach a higher level of abundance. But with the current way things are being run I would say stick to 75/25. People will surely just automate more with a current 50/50 plan.
And I can get a feel of many high Stake holders that they are not really caring that much about real content and never will. They only have limited Tokens. Content Creators have limitless material. They are what creates the magic, they are what pulls in people to the system. When you empower these content creators a long time and nurture them they will be the best authority to curate new material. As they have earned their role and position. They have made themselves vulnerable by producing something real.
A content creator has usually way more influence than a high stake holder as they daily can create new connections with others that has invested equal buy-in. I am still very skeptical about a high stake holders that wonders about ROI every single second when they already have enough to live in abundance for the rest of their life. Clearly the highest ROI is to invest in people producing quality content and leverage human energy.
Lavish abundance should be re-invested into people with massive buy-in and that can master leverage. I'm just too worried 50/50 would create more mediocre stuff. When I came into Steem Jan 2018, it was the lavish abundance of a dtube vote that made me invest thousands. If 50% would have been taken away I'm not really sure if I would have had buy-in. Some content creators are a million times better than others. So they should have way more for that. As that will inspire others to act the same and aim up. People have always loved the idea of a hero.
Yes this is very much true! Thanks for a great logical comment that covered some stuff I never would have thought about. This is what makes up big value on a Blockchain. Real comments with great input.
Thanks for your more professional in-depth comment on this subject. I will think about it a bit to see what my views are.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to him, I couldn't bother after seeing that pointed out all over the place.
I see what you did here trying to take credit for the above comment XD This comment from @kendrahill is not talking about the same system as High Stake holders is talking about. This comment is talking about more empowerment to content creators hands. If you make 50/50 system wrong then it will surely end up in communist system with lots of low effort stuff be produced.
Especially this part is talking about more empowerment to content creators:
But if you just make a system where High Stake holders can run wild then it will surely cause Chaos.
If you are just taking this out:
You are taking it out of context. The context above is extremely relevant. Or else distortion effects will very easily be created.
The 50/50 system will work better with free downvotes on the table for low effort content and bid botted garbage.
Also about your comment "@smooth didn't reply to me", just because someone stops responding to me doesn't mean you have a great debate going or that you won the argument.
If you really wanted to tip someone for their comment then do so through the tipping system, not changing the order of comments through bid bot votes on comments and then proceed to shill another blockchain knowing your reply is at the top.
I don't just filter my comment section based on people that agree with me or give me compliments else I wouldn't have voted up his comment asking where this will place content creators and their rewards.
I don't really know how these changes are going to effect the platform but anything than what we got now will surely improve it.
Also it's quite obvious that content creators are being paid too much, this is of course not for everyone because of how the reward pool works some people are gaming it to make the most themselves which to them seems like low effort earnings considering content creators and witnesses are right now the biggest sellers of Steem, not curators.
Not to mention the value of this content that is rewarded here being posted somewhere else would not get a fraction of the rewards, not to mention we aren't even generating any income through ads nor do 99% of people bother sharing their own content onto other platforms to generate traffic.
See, thats exactly whats wrong with this proposal. It makes people jump to what could be best described as the "most intuitive conclusion" without actually having to look deeper into their arguments.
Its great that you have a lot of faith in "humanity" but the facts point into another direction.
We need to try and analyze behavior patterns before making such a drastic change.
Im sorry to say but not a single thing you said here is likely to happen.
I appreciate your positive outlook but everything points in another direction..
Under 1. you just put all your faith into the hands of a few whale curators that might or might not know whats best. Might or might not increase their effectiveness. You widened the overall wealth gap between have and have nots.
Under 2. that standards will be raised? Not really. If people dont leave they are actually more likely to increase their content volume because you just cut their earnings. Instead of putting hard work into a 1-2 post/videos per day... They will put in less work per post and increase the number of posts made.
... high, low quality, etc, it doesnt matter. .. What matters is increased centralization in token distribution.
On the 3. point.... This proposal makes upvote buying cheaper and completely destroys the trending page. Trending will actually look far worse then it does now.
Unfortunately no one is willing to even consider that, because large accounts, even if they are nice enough to curate, like @acidyo here, the prospect of having such a big boost to earnings just closes their mind to any valid criticism. Witnesses follow in suite because these curation accounts are vocal and have indebted thousands of people with their work over these last 2 years..
Not until passive investors start taking back their witness votes will witness resolve start to buckle.
anyways...
..