RE: Why are so many “power account” payouts down? And why so drastically?
Not to be a dick, but I need to really point this out.
If we are to compare Apple to apples, and we see that a similar user is making the exact same content as you, and they make about 10c per 1000 views on advertisements and gets about 10,000 views, making only $1 and you make 1 steem rewards, then by that very fact, you've done just as good as the YouTuber just by being here alone.
I don't think your content deserves to make you a living given who the audience is and I'm sure you don't either, so why expect those crazy payouts like before? That was outside of the norm. If youre inside the norm, you should be earning less in rewards, as more users join (with better content than you, and there always will be).
But if all content on this site were making 15 steem units and comparable quality to yours, then at the current rate, you're doing better than YouTube daily bloggers with 100,000 daily views.
I think we're all used to seeing these high payouts that was essentially money growing from a tree. Litterally a free money tree and people down this whole comment line is upset that the money tree is drying.
It's not that their work quality went up. It's just that their low quality, low interest content is no longer earning as much free money as before and it's because of this or that etc.
While I think bidbots have a lot to with what appears on the trending page, there's also the fact that there's tons of shit posting and poor access to whatever good content is out there (nearly everyone below has stated that below).
Can an update to the condenser fix that? Maybe it can fix one of underlying problems with what appears at the front. But more so, maybe people just don't have an incentive to work harder... Because of decentralization.
You make points. You even make points I've made in the past.
But the thing is, it's not apples and apples - it's apples and oranges. Hell, it's more like apples and kayaks.
That's how distant Steemit and sites like YouTube are from each other.
I don't buy it that the payouts are so heavily affected by new users. Not since the vast majority of new users struggle to get a single vote outside of their own self-vote.
If I were to start here today, I'd never make a dime. I'm not even sure it's worth it to join Steemit today.
I sort of agree that right now, given how things are and how small the audience is, no one here "deserves" to "make a living" off of this - if we use a very limited definition of "deserving", and if we compare Steemit to a site like YouTube - like I myself have done in the past.
But since this is not YouTube, this is Steemit, however.
The rewards are going somewhere, and people are expressing frustration over where they are going.
It's subjective, of course, but something being subjective - by its very nature- opens it up to public opinion.
You are correct that steemit and youtube are miles away from each other, but the behavior of people are exactly the same, no matter what platform you are on.
To break it down, in all social media platforms, there are producers and consumers. The consumers have attention to give, and producers want money. Thats how relationship of attention = money was developed. The problem is that there isnt a direct relationship between the two in traditional platforms. In terms of youtube, the equation becomes
attention + advertisers = producers + money.
On the left is the flow in, and the right is the flow out.
On steemit, the intent was
attention+investment (SP)= producers + money
If no one invests in the platform, through locking in SP, then the producers make no money because the upvotes aren't there. But thats not the only way this equation can become unbalanced.
Another way for it to become unbalanced is by removing the attention element. Bidbots remove attention in two ways.
First, the person who invests into the platform no longer gives their attention, allowing producers to make whatever they want. The second way, is that the attention no longer drives the producers to make what the person giving the attention wants to read (that was a mouthful).
The only solution to fixing this is centralization. There will never be a collective force big enough to fix the problem without centralized governing body.
I think this is possible with a large enough SP account that makes the right moves for investors. The pitch would be that if you continue to support bidbots, you'll lose money. Earn less, but earn it for a longer period of time in something thats worth investing in.
It's not that their work quality went up. It's just that their low quality, low interest content is no longer earning as much free money as before and it's because of this or that etc.
This is true for some users, absolutely. I think it's a truth that many steemians don't want to admit. As the platform grows, the quality standard rises dramatically.
I get what your saying, but the phrasing isn't exactly right.
A decentralized app with more and more users will not increase the standard. There is no standard.
The only thing that will happen is the % of users that are willing to produce good content will normalize. As more users join, the % of good content, in theory will remain the same. But higher volume results in higher number of good quality content.
Part of the issue is decentralization. Steemit.com is too decentralized to serve any real purpose. Communities is great and all, but the monetary system here typically brings the wrong types of people.
The reality is that we need a centralized governing body to organize things.
While you made many good points, this considers economics as the only metric of value.
Frankly, that's a ludicrous assumption, and will result in horrifying hegemony, just as it has in the real world.
The real reality is that we need to consider many value streams Steemit provides. If you're only consideration and value you're interested in is financial, communities will provide you a way to focus on that.
I'm greatly looking forward to communities, because I am seeking to minimize mere financial considerations, for far more important values I reckon are becoming existential.
Censorship, and freedom of speech, for example. That's more important than money today. Just ask Tommy Robinson.
The centralization doesn't have to be broad styled like facebook. It can be communities based, which can and does also exist in real life. The issue with the real life versions are how they come to power, keep their power and what they do with the power.
In the steemit world, the total opposite exists. The only hegemon is the SP hegemon that consists mostly of whales. They have it and thus control the rewards to their desire. If you completely destroy the ability to allow hegemons to exist, then you also negate the ability to combat them. But that's not what we are talking about or see here.
What i'm advocating for stronger communities with people willing to put their SP to work, and the best way for that to happen is to have effective community leaders (and delegation).
I agree there is no literal standard, like there's no group of people who set a standard. In my opinion though, the community and "market" of votes acts to set the standard, without any individual needing to consciously do it. The standard is whatever quality people need to reach before they can get an audience.
The centralized governing body thing, that we may have to disagree about for now. Good discussion mate, Cheers
Thats the point I dont agree with ( i mean, I agree with it, but thats not whats going on here). The level of quality needed to reach an audience here has been removed by the ability to collude outside the network. That collusion is not something that can be solved on the blockchain level. Because of that, it needs a centralized way to control behavior of steemians. All bidbots are, are centralized power if you think about it. the difference is that it can be removed just as fast as it was created, thanks to delegations.
Already total BS and lost me.
Who on here is me and where did you not get that I’m not complaining?
You sound silly.
edit: Nope, scratch my comment. I actually was talking to you. If you don't get it, and you think im silly and full of bullshit then that's that. Not attacking you, but making an open discussion.
I don’t think you’re full of bullshit. I agree with a lot of what you said. I just think maybe you assumed too much, man. I don’t think I complained anywhere, and I never said I deserved anything. Nor were the payouts I and others making “crazy” in my view. And if I said to you that what you express here is the “exact same” thing as what others express, I think that would be silly. No two people are the same, and thus, no two blogs.
It's anecdotal as much as anything else.