You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A closer look at the idea for increasing curation from KevinWong and Traf // my thoughts
Oh, Jesus, I hadn't thought about the move to vote-selling being so much more worthwhile than delegation. You're completely right about that.
Thx. I just fear that this could actually increase demand for votes in the vote selling market due to reduced organic payouts especially from creators that are somewhat established already and liquidity is a click away.
Who would purchase the vote and for what purpose? Today they'll spend $100 and receive $115 potential reward for their post. Usually not much more than that, not much less. Factor in 50/50. Now they've spent $100 and will receive $57.5. They'll need to earn $42.5 in organic votes just to break even.
The vote seller would have to sell the vote for far less than they do today in order to make their product appealing to the consumer, would they not? How low can they really go? Will the vote buyer spend $50 and receive $100? Factor in 50/50. Spend $50 to earn $50? What's the point?
Your thoughts?
I don't know much about vote selling economics, but if the vote sellers earned 2x curation on those votes, maybe the price would go down.
Also author rewards would be cut by 1/3, not by 1/2. (From 75% to 50%).
So IF the price was 50% less and the return only reduced by 34%, that sounds like a better margin than before.
The vote seller could earn, but why does one want to buy the vote? I'm still seeing far too much of a loss for the vote buyer, so I can't see why one would purchase the vote at that rate. If purchasing the vote loses it's appeal, the vote seller cannot make money.
Upvote selling services can easily adjust to increased curation. Point is that profit maximization seekers will always go for the profit maximizing option and vote buyers under the pressure of reduced payouts will increase vote buying.
The profit maximizing option is to accept selling votes for less liquid assets but the increase in curation offsets their loss in liquid assets.
You achieved a new balance in vote selling. It remains as profitable for vote buyers as it is now and now the "less liquid assets+increased curation" is still the profit maximizing option for vote sellers and superior to curation in that regard..
Throw some numbers at me. I'm still stuck on how the vote buyer is to make up the $42.5 loss I pointed out above. What I'm seeing there is a huge risk, meaning vote buying loses its appeal and that translates into vote sellers not being able to make money at all.
Because vote selling services will adjust the rates. The current system for sure has more appeal to passive investors then the one that would come if the proposal is accepted. But the profit maximization behavior points away from curation which means nothing really will change.
This will not be the case. What will happen is that you wont be spending 100$ to get 115$ on the post prior to payout (if thats what youre referring to). You will spend 100$ to get 115$ after payout happens and curation is calculated in since the rates will be adjusted. The vote selling will be adjusted for the 50% curation.
The liquid assets that passive investors would get will be reduced, but that loss will be exchanged for more curation % from vote selling.
The passive investors will not like this change, because getting more liquid SBD/STEEM rather then less, is superior to increased SP gain, but if they decide not to pack their bags, they will still not curate because selling their votes for "less liquid assets + increased curation" from vote selling is still by far the better choice for them. Its the profit maximizing choice combined with 0 effort.
The gap between vote seller earnings and curator earnings will remain. They will lose on liquid token accumulation but wont lose anything in overall token accumulation.
So who is the loser? The non boting/upvote buying creators.
In order to get $115 after payout, under a 50/50 model, the post would require $230 before payout. Where does that extra $115 come from if the vote seller only spent $100? There's no way vote selling can be profitable if spending $100 directed $230 worth of rewards to a post. I doubt they have the SP or Voting Mana to meet that demand, meaning they'd be limited to selling fewer votes.
Exactly. You wont be spending a 100$, you would be spending less because you will be getting less. Thats the adjustment.
The vote sellers get less liquid assets.
Say a vote seller has a 50$ vote.. To get that vote right now you pay around 37 SBD or around 35$.
If the proposal changes curation %... Then you wont pay 37SBD. Paying something around 23SBD will probably make it as profitable as it is now for the vote buyer. Not taking into account what might happen under the hood.
So yes, you are right, at first glance vote selling is less profitable. Its less profitable in liquid assets. He still gets more curation and still gets some liquid assets. You didnt really do much to encourage him to curate.
This is actually good for the vote buyers in the short term. Now they pay less for larger votes. It takes them now around 400$ to get top trending, with the proposal change it will probably be down to 250$ or something in that vicinity.
Im telling you this will make things even worse. Screw things up even more.
We need a UI change and bot upvote filtering.
The math seems wonky and as someone who could purchase the vote, it doesn't sound appealing. That's me though, I'm tight with my money.
The lowered amount to trend sounds appealing to someone like me who will not purchase the vote. With less rewards being pulled from the pool, more rewards will be applied to our posts. The way it works: if we had enough SP to downvote every post that used bots, all other posts would increase in value as they sit in our blogs. I could be wrong, but that's how the reward pool worked last time I checked, awhile ago. If I'm wrong, then the lowered cost to trend wouldn't boost the value of our posts naturally therefore losing it's appeal.
Ups and downs, pros and cons to everything, right?
I agree with the UI change. I've written about that many times, dating all the way back to December of last year. If that only sweeps problems under the rug though, and hides cases of abuse, it's not good. Some plagiarists have boosted posts to trending in the past. It's comical. Much like walking into a store, introducing yourself to everyone by name, and kindly announcing the fact you're about to steal as much as you can carry out the door.
Anyway. Good talk. Thanks for taking the time.
P.S. If I did piss you off or insult you before, that wasn't my intention, but I do apologize. The downvote wasn't personal. Those never are when I use them.
edited post above..