You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Witness consensus status to fix the actual steem’s economic flows (ENG)
The method currently in place to distribute rewards from voting is an algorithm which rewards predicting what other accounts will vote on, not one which rewards discovering content.
The argument behind this change is that the current curation system does not give enough reward to curators, therefore it is ineffective.
If the goal is driving content discovery, it's ineffective because it fundamentally doesn't work.
How do we measured valuable discovered content and who discovered it first? Even discovering is not enough as it has to be discovered and promoted by an influencer and even then it may not get much traction. Sometimes bad content goes further simply because of the platform built by the author. These are not simple problems to solve. If you have a better algorithm, is it published somewhere for review?
Nope. That's the Holy Grail; if we could actually do that Steem would gain immensely more value, and you can bet that if I had one I would never shut up about it.
But I don't drive faster on a flat tire just because I don't have a spare.
Using your analogy, what do you suggest? Pull over and stop the car?
Bring solutions. It's easy to complain, hard to improve. If the Steem economy has a flat tire right now, then lets try some things to fix it. Just yelling, "That won't work!" is not helpful. Instead maybe try, "I understand the reasoning behind this argument based on X, Y, and X. There are a lot of good points there including A, B, and C. I don't think, however, it will have the intended effect because of 1, 2, and 3. Instead, I suggest alpha, gamma, and beta as possible solutions, knowing full well those bring about new challenges we'd have to solve such BLUE, ORANGE, and RED."
Steal man the argument you are bringing down so the people who disagree with you at least know you can fully and accurately argue their position before introducing something better. If you have nothing better to introduce then it sounds... kind of pointless?
You're welcome to go all the way back to this post if you like. Or you can read my most recent one. Or you can read my discussion with Smooth in these comments.
The argument that curation is ineffective so we should increase it is not really intelligent enough to be worth extensively deconstructing. It deconstructs itself.