RE: Block-Change You Can Believe In!
I agree with almost everything you have written. As I mostly do because you are a very reasonable chap.
The one thing I don't, is with curation rewards. I think something else is needed. Something different. If the curation rewards are upped to 50% I don't see a lot of behaviour changing. Just people piling on to the most popular posts with the desperate idea that it will guarantee them more curation. Which because of the solid numbers piling on to the same posts it most definitely wont.
I wish I had the answer, which I don't. I have toyed with the idea of how scrapping curation rewards altogether would work. Simply because they are not curation rewards.
People believe that if they were scrapped then there would be no reason to vote for people. But they are thinking in-the-box when they think like this. Most decent users I know do not think of curation rewards in the slightest when voting. Someone once chinned me on chat about helping me to maximise my curation rewards because they were sh*te. Obviously I told them to beat it.
What would that mean for the non content producing investors who want to maximise their investment? I wonder if there is some other algorithm that can be calculated. Other than straight up cut of the post rewards relative to stake.
Anyway, look what you have made me do. Write a big long comment like it was 2017. For shame ;O)
I think you underestimate the returns that can be made from voting, especially if curation rewards were bumped to 50% or more. I think we would see a lot less shitposting from invested users and a lot more curation. Generally speaking, creating a post takes a lot more time than scrolling through your feed and voting on the content from your favorite authors.
Just as an example, with very minimal effort, I can earn about 25-30 SP each week just from voting on a handful of posts per day from my feed. If I put in a little more time and slightly tweaked my strategy, I could probably get that to 40 SP or more. Now this is with curation rewards at less than 25% - probably closer to half of that. If we were to double that reward (even assuming that you're now only getting 25% instead of 50% of the post rewards, due to the reverse auction), then I could potentially earn 80 SP per week.
80 x $2.40 (current STEEM price) = $192/week
And the SP is continuously compounded. Even if it wasn't compounded, I could make 4160 SP per year just from voting on content. At a $5 STEEM price, that's $400 per week or $20,800 per year. If this could be done without ever having to write a single word on a post, I think a lot of people would be interested. If that profit could be further increased by guaranteeing a 50% split - which would represent another potential doubling of rewards to curators - we would have a huge incentive to not only curate, but to curate better.
We would also have a lot more people curating content, which would help with wider allocation/distribution and likely better discovery overall. Of course, this would also require some other changes, such as the ones I've proposed in my post. Changing curation rewards alone won't help us achieve any kind of "ideal" voting behaviors.
I can save you the trouble: It wouldn't work.
If there were no curation rewards at all, then there would be no economic incentive to hold Steem Power except to upvote yourself. And if we were all incentivized to simply upvote ourselves, there would be nothing at all "social" about this platform. I would argue that we're already trending in that direction with the current protocols, partly because curation rewards are already closer to zero than they ought to be.
Dammit. You tricked me into doing the same thing! How does that make you feel???
I feel awful... lol!
You are right I did underestimate the returns that could be made. I hope that they do something then. Whats the chat in the witness channel, are you really a lone voice shouting into the wind?
I feel like I am most of the time. Based on what I've seen, most of the top witnesses don't think that there are many issues to be resolved. They seem to be really excited about SMTs and communities and lots of other things that we may never actually get from STINC.
You'd be surprised at how little critical thought there appears to be about the actual economics of the platform and the effects on social media behavior. They mostly talk about superficial crap, like their voting schemes and "supporting" minnows or what kind of new app they've created for witnesses to stare at their witness stats.
Besides...half of them run bid bots or delegate to them, so you won't get many honest critiques about their effects or about delegation. Or anything else, really. Most of them don't really understand economics. Some of them still don't understand how the Steem currencies work. Don't comprehend what social media is.
Surprised to see that this place is even functional at all, honestly. But what can you do? They're entrenched at this point.
I suspected something similar with the constant focus on cummunities and SMT's. I for one am not that fussed about communities. There should maybe be better organisation of tags or something similar so its maybe easier to find things but the communities thing to me smacks of trying to copy reddit. Which isnt a social media platform and this is touted as one. Someties some of the stuff I read suggests that some have that reddit mentality. I remember in my first few months here I suggested mass adoption wouldnt really happen until there was a slick mobile app and I was rubbished for it.
And the bid-bots. A part of me hopes that more chancers like monatomic gold man happen along and make e everything look really bad. Maybe it would galvanise somethnig although I doubt it.
What if it was another Jerry Banfield scam/shit-post?
https://steemit.com/steem/@ats-david/re-jerrybanfield-introducing-steem-power-backed-smart-media-tokens-20180608t062601166z
Bloody fucking hell, any of them bar him. I must read this one
It's funny how on Steemit this is considered long. This is a small exchange of ideas in the everyday Facebook debates I take part in.
Steemit is a social media for those with severe ADD.
wut?
Your facebook debates sound awesome! ;O)
You should see how this looks on my screen, it's like, infinity or something.
Yeah, to be fair, I have a giant-sized screen, so it may skew things on my end.
I'm in Scotland, everything is much smaller here. Even the people, we are tiny
Hah. I actually know that for a fact. A short male friend of mine ended up moving to Scotland because he couldn't get a girlfriend in Finland. In Scotland, he had a shot.
Hahahaha, yeah that would be right. He would have been quite the exotic long limbed giant here.
:D Funny how I got amused through a dry but very interesting post and the comments, for me as a new user. Honestly, I got to know steem/it very late (probably because I kicked all other social media 4 year before), and after some posts I've seen, I worried almost steemit is about to die. For me it is still like Alice in wonderland, where it looks that rabbitholes never end.
So much input, it's for me like 1995, when suddenly there was every day more input like I digested in one year before. But after all your conversation I'm feel very positive and relaxed now.
Thanks for the nice read on something I was thinking never to read :)
PS: Also I famous for my "long testaments" and ever busy to short them down, and more down, but now it looks to me that this is not a problem at all :) thx again, and have a nice time
Man, Steemit used to be the home for "long-form" shit, too, in a way.
I remember when the culture was such that shitposts were frowned upon.
Now shitposting is all everyone does.