RE: WHY ARE SOME OF STEEMIT BEST WRITERS LEAVING? ARE YOU FEELING IGNORED? WHAT CAN WE DO TO INCREASE RETENTION OF CREATIVE WRITERS? DO WE HAVE ROOM FOR SIMPLE SOCIAL POSTS? HOW CAN WE BALANCE BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA AND CREATIVE CONTENT?
Stop adding features.
We haven't nailed the key transaction yet. Bells and whistles detract from -- not add to -- the platform (at this time).
We lose writers because they are only one part of an equation and they are not finding the other part of the equation here.
Consumers.
We need at least ten times as many consumers as producers if there is ever going to be 'liquidity' in the platform (not to be confused with liquidity in the steem market).
Imagine a fledgling Uber losing drivers, because they weren't getting any fares. Now imagine Uber's leadership trying to fix the problem by finding more drivers.
We need fares. Consumers. People like me. Figure out how to get me back, get a lot more like me, THEN go back to the other side of the transaction (content).
I agree with you. What would get you back?
Good question. Is this a content consumption site? If so then the content has to be better than elsewhere -- I wouldn't choose to spend my finite amount of time on lesser content for the hope of earning partial pennies.
Is this a social network? If so I would choose a social network that doesn't put me shoulder to shoulder with, well, criminals with whom I do not share views of the world (you know, "famous anarchists").
Is this a cryptocurrency introduction site? If so introduction made job done.
I guess I am at a loss. It's up to the stakeholders to state clearly that this is a site with a primary function of connecting X with Y. If X is writers and Y is readers, then I am a reader and the job of the site is to connect me WITH WHAT I WANT TO READ better than any other site. If X is anarcho-blockchain-crypto-enthusiasts then Y is X (the end).
Whatever it is, the primary focus should be on matchmaking. And that cannot happen until there is clarity on who is being matched with what.
I remain interested, and hopeful. The job is not in the developers hands at this point, it is in the business leaders.
Businesspeople of Steemit: what is your product, who are the producers, and who are the consumers?
@ned
That was fantastically concise and clear. I'm actually at a loss of an answer, and it's worth sitting down and figuring out, for myself as well as others, what it is we're trying to provide and who we're trying to provide it to.
Or reward consumers / commentors more.
That could help -- although I am not sure it will. Replacing pennies with nickels is still not enough to change my habits regarding how I spend a limited amount of free time. At this time it would have to be totally upended-- the majority of the available reward pool would have to be focused on generating critical mass on the consumer side.
It wouldn't be a living it would just be more fun. Remember only 800 users post a day 3000 vote. The voters are not trying to make a living more they want to have fun. It's a game to see if you get curation rewards or get a few cents on your comment. Why do people comment in redit? We can keep all the authors or lose half of the them, doesn't matter. But if we triple the voters and they start powering up to boost rewards and influence then the value of steem will rise. Simple. People write for fun or for reputation. I see no reason to pay them much.
So refocus the majority of the reward pool on the curators, triple their number. It could work But wouldn't curation reward have to also be disassociated from SP?
No I think that's brilliant. I might've make the influence sp gives you go up a little slower. Maybe to the 1.5 power intraday of 2 but sp is very important.
The problem here is people didn't earn sp curating. It's like a society of people where capital wasn't in government s hands instead of capitalist would have a lower return on invested capital until capital ended up with people who were good at allocating it. Our steemit sp is in the hand s of developers not marketers and curators. It will fix itself eventually but we'll have a low return on payouts until it's fixed(too much to authors)
Making curator rewards the "majority" of the pool is not necessary. Merely going back to the original 50/50 split would literally double every single user's curation rewards[note] while cutting post rewards by only 33%.
The original concept was that shifting rewards to posting would help distribute them more widely because most users would post. That has turned out to be completely wrong. Most users do not post significantly, they read and vote. As @dennygalindo said well, we need more 'Uber passengers' not 'Uber drivers'. (Truthfully we need both, but there is at least some clear incentive in place to attract 'drivers', much less so for 'passengers'.)
Rolling-back the incorrect reward shift is not all that is needed to attract more consumers, but it is a start, and something that is easy to do.
Note: Except those whose curation rewards are currently too small to pay out at all. Many of those would start getting rewards for the first time.