RE: Fixing Curation: Community Discussion
How is the people who when they post, will curate a lot more money, such as Whales, whose upvotes on their own posts can generate a nice little sum of money, how does that make them lose money? I don't understand that part.
The thing with how it is right now is that, if curation goes mostly to those who upvote, how will people writing posts make money at all? The way I see it, is that us little fish will still get buried beneath the sea of larger fish and make very little.
Right now, how things are, Steemit is the ONLY place where I can make a BIT of profit. No where else. Because of my mental and physical state. I am able to generate between $30 and $50 a month. I will upvote my 3 cents and 2 cents and even 1 cent, because I know that even if my voting power has gone down, it's still worth something to someone.
I do not believe that this will solve the problem of greedy Whales. I think this will only perpetuate the problem further and cause the Whales to upvote even less other than each other because they will generate even less from a post. It will not encourage them to upvote the little people.
I think your train of thought is going somewhere, but not quite in the right direction yet. Personally, I think that people who are greedy will be greedy no matter what. These changes won't change THAT.
That being said, I appreciate that you are looking for solutions and coming up with ideas and sharing them. This is how we can find something that works.
But I don't think the problem is in the curation rewards versus the post rewards.
I've been on steemit for about 16 months now and I've seen the differences in voting patterns and curation. When you upvote your own content you do not get any curation rewards. The difference is that people will be voting more and the majority of the power on steemit wouldn't be dedicated to bots that you have to pay to use. The problem is right now it's the same thing to sell a vote as it would be to just go vote on new users and promote quality content. What we have right now is people spamming a lot of garbage posts fighting over pennies instead of a lot of quality content making drastically higher rewards. 75% of a 10 dollar post or 35% of 100 dollar post is still more money for the author.
Hmm, yeah...
I only tried 2 bots, but I find that I make more from the free options when they do select my post.
I suppose that is true about trying to eliminate bots because people get upvoted for content that is not as deserving perhaps as some other content that get buried. However, how do we know this will eliminate the bot factor? I think bots will still exist, Whales will still be stingy, and then honest folk will make even less. Those are all fears, of course, but something to consider in finding the solution.
Bots did not exist in this capacity until the last hardfork because they weren't profitable. Basically we just automated not rewarding people instead of just doing a better reward distribution. 18 forks things weren't perfect and they changed a lot, but this last one is killing the community, I can assure you of that.
Well a solution is definitely needed. It will be tougher to find which one. There are Whales who give free curation to Minnows and Red Fish, 1 or 2% upvote which is like $5 and are generous with their votes. So why do Whales need so much from us when we have so little and they have so much? I,ve gotten more from the free upvoters and from kind Whales or Dolphins than from bidding on a bot.
People are motivated for all kinds of reasons. I can't really judge that. All I can say is since we went 75% author 25% curators... things have become increasingly worse... people stopped voting like they used to, and it's way too profitable to run voting bots.
How was curating percentages before?