You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Distributing Wealth Should Be Equally Profitable
I agree with most of these points and have raised them a lot of times myself.
I'd rephrase wealth accumulation vs wealth distribution. I'd view it as voting behavior that's content agnostic (eg. vote selling, self voting, delegation market etc.) which undermines the content discovery feature of the platform, and voting behavior that's content reflective (eg curation) which adds value to the platform.
I entirely agree that the economics should be altered to allow the latter to be competitive with the former, while still leaving enough rewards on the table to incentivize good content creators.
Something like modest superlinear, 50% curation, slightly increased downvote incentives and slightly less top heavy curation curve would be ideal.
Do you think content discovery is hindered by the fact that there is a trending page? I mean if we do away with the trending page and just have the hot page instead (which I believe has a shorter time frame so more likely for new good posts to appear), and maybe add a recommender system base on what a user post or voted previously, would that improve the content discovery aspect? I know this is side tracked from the voting discussion but it just popped up in the mind.
Yeah hot is much better!
Good to see, some whales of the community still think about betterment and growing with the minnows like us. If you guys make the right move, we will follow you there. For better community and giving the equal opportunity to all.
I rather think this idea has the potential to kill the community. 50% curation rewards mean nothing positive for a minnow. This only effects a few current top curators in a positive manner, everyone else would be drastically worse off.
whale/minnow ratio is such that those few large accounts that would curate more due to this still wouldnt be able to make any positive change to wealth distribution. Quite the opposite. This would mean more wealth accumulation in the hands of the wealthy. Taking away from the authors and giving to those that have large upvotes.
This really wouldnt benefit anyone but the few top curators like Kevin or large SP holders.
It's inaccurate to equate the proposal to "taking away from the authors and giving to those that have large upvotes".
Its rather a figure of speech or its a lapsus from my part in explaining my position. You arent "taking away", but you are creating a system that is even more focused towards accumulation of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. I dont think that should be the case.
The problem here is the stake based reward system. I have high hopes for SMTs and their 1 account/ 1 vote system Ned intends to move towards.
It has its own problems, but maybe then we wont need to rely on whale support. If SMTs werent a thing i probably wouldnt be giving my critical opinion on a large account like yours. haha. :D
No one can tell if you're a dog or cat on the internet, even the blockchain..
edit: and extrapolate a few years down when most people aren't gonna give out their votes.
Well it was nice talking to you, regardless if i agree or not. Off to tell Grumpycat he is wrong about something. See how it goes. hahaha.
See ya round. ;)
Lol btw to clarify, I'm liking that 1 account / 1 vote system as well. It's value, security, scalability etc will depend on use case.
Kev, i read this post linked below. I think you might find it interesting. Its not really connected to our convo, but since you are a manual curator im pretty sure you will find this very "frustrating" if you arent already aware of the practice.
See ya.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@firedream/another-way-of-milking-the-system
Don't mind trying this out. Even burgers can evolve and become better.
The answer is simple, at least to me.
Change the stupid mechanic of first voters getting more curation, just have it be determined by the vote values. Remove the pointless 30 minute scaling curation and make it 0 minutes.
50% curation/50% author reward. This should be self-evident in how it will encourage large SP holders to be forced to shitpost less.
Also, make curation and authorship give the same TYPE of rewards. It is banal to say the least to have curation only give SP while authors have the option of liquid SBD. Give both options to curation as well, or have both only give SP.
Some tweaks to power down time (probably shouldn't be 0 days, because hacking could be far more damaging to users) will also make powering up seem like less risky of an investment as well compared to straight trading STEEM.