You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Details on Proposed Comment Reward Curve
And this cannot be achieved through the same reward pool? You have not explained/argued how or by what mechanism exactly more engagement happens because of a separate reward pool.
Because with separate reward pool comments compete against other comments, not posts. Allocating 38% for comment rewards instead of current nearly 10% is enough economic incentive to predict significant improvement in the quality of discussion.
Its audacious to say comments aren't worth as much as posts, and I think everyone agrees on that, at least I hope so, but splitting up the reward pool is treating comments as a different system and that will create more problems because of unnecessary complications. The quality of discussion won't improve simply because of a separate reward pool. You have argued not so much that it's necessary to have a different pool, you have argued mostly that it's necessary to treat comments with the same system/standards that posts get treated with to some extent, which I half agree with, because as long as posts are more valuable than comments the incentive for posts outweighs comments, even if it's marginal. Are we arguing that comments are not worth as much as posts or that they should not take from the rewards posts get, because I don't understand how a separate system is indeed the solution and not an unnecessary complication, wouldn't a better solution be to treat comments with the exact same standards the posts get, in turn removing a whole bunch of extra processing and speeding up the system, and in turn making the curves the same will not give any incentive to game one aspect over another.
Well I thought it was obvious. How about 38 times more rewards?
https://steemit.com/comments/@beanz/why-should-commenters-make-38x-more-rewards
I am all for removing curation rewards, but that doesn't mean that comments should be less valuable than posts, as many have pointed out they are not of the same opinion that devaluing comments is necessary. I believe that comments can and should be treated as posts (when curation rewards are removed of course) and should compete in the same reward pool then.
-nesting limit-
@beanz
I haven't read the whole whitepaper but I have just finished the section on payouts and rewards and I have a general understanding of how SP works now. I agree, curation rewards are necessary to give SP a use value like you said to curate content more effectively, therefore I believe that yes we need to curtail curation rewards to allocate the votes in the comments but I still do not understand how this needs it's own pool besides the argument that posts are going to suffer because people will allocate their votes in the comments instead of posts which in turn will devalue posts.
To counter that argument that a separate comment reward pool why not allocate more votes over the same period of time and in turn allowing people to compete in the same pool, of course with this new curve for voting power.
I think it would be a terrible idea to remove curation rewards completely to be honest. Curation rewards give SP a use value. Without it, this is not much better than the many many tipping platforms that have tried and failed. People will simply use their SP to upvotes themselves and their will be no point in curating content (organising it so that the better material is more visible)
I don't see people's behavior changing based on the rewards that curations pays (whales/hoarders excluded), at least to say that curation won't happen, curation rewards give meaning to SP, then shouldn't SP necessarily be scrapped because like you said it incentivizes votes based on payout/profit rather than on curation at that point.. or am I misunderstanding it. Curation won't stop simply because there's no paying incentive to do it. People will still type and post things because they have other incentives, they will curate in pretty much the same manner. Other platforms have a decider/admin/authority that supersedes users, steem does not, which is why I think steem cannot fail, but that is not to say that it won't stunt it's growth to have such discrepancy in power between users, it's very off putting to anybody that joins when they see not necessarily self voting, or even self voting whales, but collusion of power to gain more power. I understand the steem power is actually a great thing to invest into for arbitration, but as it is now it acts more like a savings account to use in a game of big wallet little wallet and less as a tool for arbitration.