You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is Curation on Steemit by Some People Considered a Heroic Deed?
If you upvote somebody, you earn much less than selling your vote. Or upvoting yourself, or upvoting your friends, your community. Manually curating others, you aren't connected with, means loosing money.
(Do you know somebody receiving a 50 or 15 or 8 USD upvote from an unknown orca or whale? I don't think it happens.)
That's a fair point. That's in the current landscape of vote selling and bid bots.
But I'd gladly take the money lost in manually curating if, in return, I get delegation to self-vote all of my posts to triple digits.
This is almost always true for curators. And we have this problem because the rewards/incentives are too much in favor of authors. We need to change author and curator rewards back to at least 50/50, especially now that the reverse auction window will be reduced to 15 minutes from 30 and that the forfeited rewards for early voting will be sent back into the pool.
More rewards for content consumers may reduce the desire/need to delegate for better ROI. I would certainly keep my own SP for curation if I was receiving double or more of the current returns. But getting a couple of STEEM per day from 44K+ SP isn’t really worth my time.
The incentives here have been screwed up for well over a year now and very few people care or comprehend the issue at all. Invested users are speaking with their wallets and they are saying that the incentive to stay powered up or to actively curate content just plain sucks.
I have even advocated for a 25/75 split in favor of curators. We should cater to consumers more.
i completely disagree. The only way curating can be as good as vote selling or self-voting is at 100% curation rewards. And obviously that makes for a bullshit system. So just making it a bit more profitable will not end self-voting or bidbots.
I dont think there is a consistent solution within the current steem economy because that economy is messed up. But the last thing I want to see is more $ to curators for something that is clearly broken.
Why are you so against curators making money?
I can't help but wonder what would happen if only those who curate for non-financial reasons got the chance to distribute the reward pool.
Whatever the outcome, an experiment where both curation rewards and delegations are forked out would be hilarious to watch.