You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How should Steemit Inc decentralize their stake?
To my mind the biggest problem with Steemit right now is that the site still needs a lot of work. Good content gets buried fast and easily and becomes very difficult to find minutes after its posted. I'm pretty getting off-topic a bit with this. But if a decision here can be applied as resources in some way toward site improvements, then that's the option I'd favor.
Communities are incoming - that'll vastly improve discoverability. Granted, development on that has been achingly slow, but I do hope to see it on Steemit.com by mid-2018.
It's basically akin to Subreddits. Much more effective than tags.
@ned
himself has said that sadly, this is as good as Steemit will be. As they are focusing on the development of the Blockchain itself an an interface is something that can be left for entrepreneurs to come create.If im not mistaken of @ned's vision, he forsee that Steem will be the backend infrastructure of which thousands of social media will be built.
He intends for steemit to be dwarfed by other sites.
Edit: I've been corrected by both @roadscape and @ned himself that it is not true. Steemit will continue to be developed by the wonderful team at Steemit .Inc with a dedicated and large team. I am actually very happy that I was wrong.
This is not true, there is a dedicated steemit.com UI team and planned enhancements.
There is? owh I must have been mistaken then...
Steemit is continuing to be developed with a large development team - The Steem ecosystem will also grow and may grow larger than steemit
True. The rate at which steemit community is booming is mind-blowing.
i guess the question is: is the "user directed inflation model" any good.. since its inception the rewards have largely gone to those who manipulate the system the best.
Define "manipulating the system". It's really a free market and anyone can do what they want with their Steem power.. And its up to everyone else to decide whether a person's upvote is justified. or should it be countered by a downvote.
The current iteration of user direction inflation model may have it's flaws but it's the best one we can work with.. I have my hopes up for the potential it can go.
Manipulating the system: the original intent of Steemit was to reward quality content, not increasing your own payouts just because you can. It is the content creators who make the platform interesting, not the bots, voting schemes and 1000s of sock puppet accounts.
You see, as it stands, Steemit is promoted as one thing, but in reality is another. This is what leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.
They are in effect, "duped" into participating on the platform, only to realise at some point later that simply creating good content does not win you a fair share of the rewards because others are gaming the system. This is no better than Zuckerberg and FB.
You hit it right @leoplaw!
There are some great sites created already, like Dtube and Dlive; it us actually rather exciting. I wonder if anyone us creating more steemit readers like esteem. Perhaps they can figure out some more useful filters.
It's to come i guess. Any entrepreneurs who wants to seize the opportunity offered by the steem blockchain can come up with an app to take a shot ..
.
Oh, that's the first I've heard of that. That'll be great. The tag system isn't a super effective method of separating content.
I think a solution that would support exactly those communities would be ideal. Maybe through some sort of voting amplification that would distribute some extra Steem among creators adding the most value to their respective communities.
I do hope to see Steemit Inc delegate to many communities far and wide. Curators can earn curation rewards.
This is a great idea. Building a community is very hard work, and it would be very nice if Steemit Inc could incentivize it.
At steemit, communication very important
I would like to see a semantic search, apache stambol or even solr.
I've built a large music community called Open Mic that supports hundreds of musicians a week and onboards lots of new users. There are even Steemit meetups of musicians happening around the world that center around that community. Any development that supports bringing more people to the platform deserves support.
No, that's directly on-topic, and one of the many reasons why people are averse to adopting the use of steemit as their regular social media destination. Normal people just don't feel welcomed here.
On the contrary, you have a far higher chance of gaining an audience on Steem than anywhere else on the internet. This is because curation is incentivized, and you have plenty of great projects like Curie, steemSTEM and OCD (in addition to many individual curators) looking out for the best posts by new authors.
See, that's a huge problem in itself, the system is so broken that we need super-powered groups to curate, when it's something that could be done by the community itself if it wasn't for the fact that new users' attempts at curation are next to meaningless because of the math. As far as content creators go, I do admit that because of the dearth of talent on the platform it's quite easy for incoming star writers and content producers to get noticed by the groups you mentioned.
I can name dozens of great individual curators if you want. I named the groups because they are easy to recall. As for new users, they are free to power up and curate.
Yes, of course there are also individuals who curate. That's the issue, your recommendation is that they throw money at the problem, why would any sane person do that when they already have other social media accounts where their vote has equal weight by default and their social circles are already hooked in? Everyone on steemit is either heavily invested or trying to make money, turning steemit into a workplace more than a recreational site.
Another side note, VC never has the users in mind, I hope a large share isn't chunked off to some assholes who just want to flip it.
Because other social networks don't pay you curation rewards.
Curation rewards as currently implemented are a joke. You have to upvote that content within 30 minutes, and they want to further reduce that to 15 minutes in the next fork.
So, you have to be continuously glued to the screen to curate and reap a curation reward. Or use bot farms.
If curation rewards didn't have a time window it would work better. But then ofcourse, every bot and user will try to maximise gains by upvoting as many posts as possible. This points to another problem with Steem.. there is nothing to lose for the upvoters. There needs to be some negative feedback to the voters (they need to lose something in the present in order to gain something in the future).
You're incentivized to vote after 30 minutes. Within the first 30 minutes you pay a penalty, but after 30 minutes you keep all of your curation rewards.
You can't just vote anything, as you have very limited voting power. And you'll only earn good curation rewards on discovering good content and voting before larger stakeholders do.
No, at any given moment, there will be some new good posts that have just been published. You don't have to curate all to curate some.
A bigger issue in my mind is the fact that curation rewards, intended to reward manual and intelligent curation showing "proof of brain", can be reliably beaten by just automatically front-running vote selling bots.
Steem is still in it's early stages.
We have to implement changes to better the system. (Apparently that includes halving the curation reward window).
Ganging up to get more rewards is reward pool rape.
It disadvantages everbody that doesnt join in.
The owners won't give up control until they start losing money lets get real ned is making way too much doing this
Yeah, for sure. It's hard to have a system that is "free" but also isn't full of endless garbage. It also seems impossible for any content to be lasting in any way with the payout scheme.
Anyone could make their own site, we don't have to rely on steemit inc for this. There's just not much incentive to do it at this point
Yeah, decentralization is good for innovation.
But you still need to invest time and money to come up with something better.
Not forgetting the cost of the new sign-ups.
That's a good point. It would be really cool if @busy.org or someone else actually became a real threat to being more used than Steemit as one point. I suppose that would lead to faster development for both parties.
eggsactly, couldn't have said it any better... or maybe I could, It's kind of the problem with the social media... Like 9gag for example... There're so many memes... That most times, the good ones get over-shadowed and are never seen.
Amen to your statement!
If only there were some incentive system for people to dig through large amounts of content and upvote them.
Oh, wait.
Yeh improving the site is what all the friends I have recommended come to Steemit say.
And they're not wrong. We still need some more features if we want to compete with other social medias.
I'm working on a project that would make your feed show you posts that have been voted on by people that tend to vote similarly to you. (I found this post using my test version) That way, everyone becomes your personal curators. This is the way that most social networks work. It has really improved my experience on steemit. I explain it more in this post. Sorry for the link spam but it is past payout anyway. I just thought you might find it interesting.