RE: Steem experiment: Burn post #1
Thanks for your reply!
Creating a whale account to downvote at 6.5 days any posts with rewards in excess of 250 USD would have a very similar impact
I think the impact of such a modality would be very different and quite problematic. As you say, one difference is a psychological one which is that it would be perceived as a negation of rewards in contrast to the distribution of rewards to the benefit of all stake-holders. True, Rshares would be freed-up for re-allocation, yet only authors with posts in pending payout would benefit. Non-publishing stakeholders or authors with no active post would remain empty-handed.
However, the main concern I have with this measure is that it would impair the reward finding process for posts above the reward cap and thus eliminate reward levels as a needed ranking parameter. If it is certain that every post will be trimmed down to a certain reward cap shortly before payout, then there is no incentive to vote on posts that are already performing above the cap. Because all curation rewards of those votes would be nullified with that downvote at 6.5 d. The result would be a big cluster of unranked posts with a payout level at the cap.
Otherwise, I fully agree with you that the "flagging" terminology is highly unfavourable. Calling it a downvote is just marginally better. In contrast, redistribution, yes, that would be something!
E.g. like
🔼: Allocate rewards
🔄: Redistribute rewards
instead of upvote/downvote...
I love the idea of calling it a redistribution!
I agree with you for the most part. Some changes or improvements to content discovery are needed.
At the present juncture my main position is to wait until we see how the upcoming changes to curation rewards actually impact the ecosystem.
lol Yes, I made a whole topic on an alternative to "flagging" for inexperienced users, it's kind of like a warning instead of a down-vote LOL
redistribution is pretty much a commie term in political circles, but used in a free to join, free to leave "vote with your feet" place like this it could work, and likely work well. More like "dividend sharing" actually, and I like that idea better ;)
Agree, "dividend sharing" is a much better term. Cheers!
Thank YOU! :D
I support the idea of calling it Redistribution... Though all of this seems too technical for me. I'll try to leave leading the ship to people who are capable of that.
It's just that it's hard to know who qualifies to save the situation.
It´s every single member of our community that qualifies to make proposals how to resolve any issue that arises.
If the technical aspects of Steemit are a source of negativity for you, then simply ignore them. Just focus on your content and engagement with the community (like you just did). Everything else is of lesser importance. So stay onboard, don´t leave the ship!
Cheers
I credit @josephsavage for having the idea of relabelling downvotes as (reward) redistribution. Let´s see whether we can create some momentum for a #proposal.
You look at post like this
https://steemit.com/seoul/@shinhan/32pqgo-seoul
Is that worth 16 SBD?
I personally would say no, but something like a fair valuation of content simply doesn´t exist.
Hey guys. Really refreshing to read constructive comments after I just scrolled through some flagging wars... @shaka, those are very interesting ideas. I think that a reward cap is a great idea. Calling it redistribution sounds really constructive as well. What do you guys think about a maximum value of an upvote which would lead to more diversification?
Apart from that, what do you think about the Steemit hierachy? We have Witnesses and that is about it. Do you think introducing other levels, like "Admins" who can decide about problematics regarding individual posts could be an approach?
Exciting times, I hope we are sailing in the right direction.
A cap is an interesting idea.
And I do agree with @shaka that valuation is a very subjective thing and sometimes it's hard to also justify why a picture of a street corner or a picture of what one had last night cannot be worth $10.
I ain't well versed in the steem witness yet so I can't say anything about that. It would be of my opinion to keep the structure as simple as possible for the time being.
Sometimes a user may have devoted a lot of energy before to build up a lot of SP or they had the foresight to buy up lots of SP when it was trading lower. They also need to be rewarded for that. So, a SQUARE ROOT of an upvote may serve as a better idea.
I plan to come up with some statistics later in my posts and look at the relationship of STEEM PRICE vs. steem newbies (minnows) upvote success rate. Stay tuned.
Thanks for your kind reply.
However, let me stress that I haven´t suggested a cap on rewards but rather a cap on the disbursement an author can receive from his rewards per post. The remainder of the the rewards would be distributed to SP holders in a stake-weighted manner
As for the hierarchy, I think there shouldn´t be any. The only and strictly quantitative discriminating factor between accounts is the amount of SP they hold or have command over. Qualitatively, it´s all about individual abilities like content creation, engagement, networking etc.
Even witnesses are users like everyone else but with an additional (and crucial) role to fullfill. Something like an "Admin" with exclusive extra-rights would be in absolute no go for me.
Cheers!
I figured it out after I wrote the reply. A cap would be a communistic approach, I still like the idea.
What about your reputation? I think there should be another possibility of gaining more influence on the platform than throwing money into your account. I have no idea how it should work but I feel the duration of your participation and your activity should be appreciated in a certain way.
Also, promotion of Steemit should be valued. Let it be referrals, view counters from non Steemit users or another concept.
Thanks for your reply (: