Curation On Steem - Let's Talk About It

8개월 전


Some of you may know I run a curation bot for content creators I see putting in the effort. The bot upvotes around 150-200 Steemians every day for around 1-2$+ a pop. I'm a businessman, let's not get that twisted for a second. Don't think I don't know I can get 4x the amount of Steem on autopilot if I just sold my votes to the highest bidder. No, instead what I do takes a level of skill and timing. Finding great consistent content creators, then battling all the other curators is not the most straightforward task. It definitely doesn't fall into the category of passive investing. I am a hybrid, I become active when the need is, but optimizing time is always priority number one for me as it should be for you.

First and foremost, plenty of prominent Steemians and I agree curation needs to be increased, to ideally 50/50 with author rewards. This helps fight selling upvotes, as when you sell an upvote, the buyer will obviously wait until they selfupvoted, their mom self upvoted, their neighbor and their dog. Point is you will get ass for curation rewards selling your vote. Hell ppl wait a few days even to use the bot. So the ROI will be better to curation bots that actually upvote at the right time the right content as opposed to just getting bidbots

So bidbots should lose some business, vote selling should lose some business as well. Because even if vote-selling outperforms a good curation bot slightly, it will be enough to tip the whales to go curation because that helps the platform

People only sell their souls if it is a 4x return in Steem, but if it is just a 1.5x return, mmm I think it'd sway whales.

"Stakeholders shouldn’t grab more slices of the pie if we raised curation" .- They already have the pie, and they eat it too by selling votes.

One could argue "google/youtube etc. don’t even take 50% of earnings from the creator."

The one big diff between what youtube takes and what curators on steem take are the fact you will likely make more as an author with higher curation rewards. Good authors will be in high demand, and everyone will pile their votes on the best ones who create higher curation rewards and author rewards. Also, what they are referring to is an ad system; Steem isn't an ad system its a donation system setup with an incentive to give donations. but one can easily sell votes instead of donating them.
when the ad ball gets rolling on Steem, I expect the content creators to get the majority of the ad revenue.


▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

The entire economics here is badly misaligned.

The combination of linear rewards curve, low curation rewards and expensive out of pocket downvotes means the economy has reached an equilibrium where voting rewards a now used and accepted as staking rewards. So this means any genuine vote you give to someone else is basically an out of pocket donation under the current failed economic system.

This in turn results in content agnostic rewards and exposure, which would spell the death of any social media platform. Content is no longer being appraised and rewarded in accordance to one's subjective opinion of its appeal. It's a race to the bottom to either write your own bs and upvote it or write some bs that's just not shit enough to get downvoted and pump it using bidbots.

I've tried a number of times to raise this before, but a combination of compromised witnesses already heavily positioned to exploit a flawed economic system, perhaps deliberate sabotage and plain old stupidity has prevented any of these concerns from being addressed.

Only possible way is if steemit inc understood the importance of fixing the economy and dictated the witnesses themselves. But I doubt it'll happen. Short of that hopefully someone can see the potential of this system and offer to buy Steemit inc out.

·

The solution is simple, of all the people I've told it too, only Kevin Wong seems to be on board. Indeed, I'm usually the person he's quoting, including in his comment above.

You increase curation rewards to 50/50 to close the gap between bid botting and curation.

That's probably not quite enough to change the status quo, so you also need to hand out a small amount of free downvotes. Roughly 2 downvotes daily vs 10 upvotes will likely suffice. That way, there is at least a viable threat to upvoting garbage content as the ones that stand out will more than likely be hammered down now that there's no cost to doing so within limits. This will further push the balance towards actually curating content that you think is appealing in terms of rewards.

Finally, you can't downvote what you can't detect. If someone splits their self voting up into thousands of different account, the cost to hunting them down is too high. Therefore, a small level of superlinear is necessary. Even something as simple as half rewards up until around 5 steem, then linear after that will do. That way, you might as well curate properly than spam micro votes as you're only getting half the rewards under a certain threshold. After that, it'll be much easier to detect and downvote with their limited free downvotes.

Increasing curation, allowing free downvotes, and having superlinear all have downsides. This is why excessive measures such as 90% curation, as much free downvotes as upvotes, and n^2 are bad ideas. The minimum amount of these measures should be used in tandem. Together, they compliment each other to plug all the leaks in this sinking ship at the lowest.

With the current economics, the platform is completely self defeating.

·
·

I've been with you and Kevin from the start, I've even took the effort of creating https://steemliber.herokuapp.com/index.html - a new frontend that filters botted posts but haven't had the time to finish it.

I also voiced my opinion loudly for some time until I just decided to give up and join the crowd. Now after selling 100% of my votes for months now, I wonder is this how @ned wants his product to work? Manually voting someone from my own feed feels like I'm wasting my voting power, you're so right about that.

The reason I invested into Steem in the first place was the proof-of-brain aspect. Bots killed what was left of it instantly.

·
·

The solution is simple, of all the people I've told it too..

Ugh, this again. 50/50 is a tragically bad idea. Ive written about this in detail months ago so i wont be going in detail now. This would do nothing to vote selling. The vote selling services would just readjust the prices.

The superior solution is cutting author rewards once the DAO launches. That would go a long way to fixing the bot problem.
I know you and Kevin want to make more money but i think the bigger problem is that youre seeing vote sellers make more then you.

If vote sellers didnt make as much im pretty sure you guys wouldnt be advocating for 50/50.

·
·

Why can't negative curation work just like positive curation?
Both have equal value.
Why are we punished for negatively voting abuse?

Oh, that's right, the abusers control the code, silly me.

·

True story.
This token economy is partially broken by too much Greed.

Like you said,
Some of witnesses are already running bidbots and making profit out of it. So as Steemit inc, I assume.

Seems like this is unstoppable.
Why? Because..

  1. Most of people aren't a charity.
  2. They came here for profit(or some fun)not for pure donation.
  3. Current Steem token economy is so tempting to running a bitbot & vote selling. (Man, 15%+@ ROI is not a joke)
  4. Many of steemit users are not willing to put their money into steemit but just wants to get an author reward & withdraw it for their own good. -> Reinvest is not happening despite of our expectation.

So.. If,

  • Whales keep doing circle-jerking,
  • Witnesses compromised to run bidbots,
  • Users only wants to extract the $$$ from steemit,

Well well..
What we gonna drink when the pool is dried out??

We need some enlightenment here.

I support your idea, @trafalgar.
50/50 Reward distribution would be a good head start.

·
·

Good points.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

might look at your account and untick /tick some witnesses

·
·

He’s too busy “ticking” his gifs and alt accounts on the 6th day....

·
·
·

sounds like what i should start doing:) left a comment on your steem vision blog

·

At this point all i need to know is stinc's position, so i can vote the opposite.

Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment at 500mv, imo.

Agree with 50/50, especially if paired along with two other measures highlighted here to cover some other angles. Profit maximization should be expected out of anyone, hence it's best aligned with the behavior that we want to encourage, ie curation or content-reflectiveness.

Quoting off someone else who sees the same thing:-

Steem Power holders should realize that we need to have a redistribution of wealth paid by inflation going from the rich to the talented, thereby attracting and exposing better and better content over time.

Personally I like to post tweetlike stuff but not necessarily keep voting on them to keep up (or selling out to achieve the same effect). I'd rather try to lobby and support stuff that I like (edit for clarification: even if its just a tweet, not necessarily long form essays) while achieving returns that are as competitive (at least not as terrible as a 4x gap) through my own curation or through some specialized/generalized curation service.

·

Steem is slowly moving away from single content creators to communities. More Actfit's and Steem Monsters on the chain is where we are headed. Less solo authors. It is already a tough sell to tell business owners that they have to pay 25% Steem tax when other block chains like Tron charge much, much less.

If anything we should lower curation rewards to 15% to attract more business'es. Steem benefits way more with several business'es running on chain and working to draw in new customers than a few leech authors. I have never seen authors spend tons of money advertising steem .... Business will.

·
·

Could you explain why you think businesses will benefit from lower curation rewards? And what 25% tax are you talking about?

·
·
·

Curation rewards are a form of a tax and thereby are a limiting factor to business operations. Take Actfit for example. They are running an ICO on Steem-Engine. They are using their steem account voting power as an incentive to add value to their ICO. That value is effectively taxed by the curation rewards built into steem. So their 35% discount is actually only 10% because in order to get the value you have to pay the 25% curation tax.

If they did the same operations on Tron the actually benefit to their customers would be a lot higher. Not many business'es who can do basic math will choose Steem over other choices due to this.

·
·
·
·

I still fail to see how the 25% curation is a tax? That 25% goes right back into the upvotes pocket? If you are saying it is a tax vs who they upvote (still no understanding how you consider it a tax) then they could simply reimburse the 25% they earn from curation rewards back to the person that got "taxed". And if they curate well, they can make better money off the 25% then they otherwise could.

·
·
·
·
·

A tax is something that is taken from both parties and given to a third party, like a government. When doing a deal, if the 25% goes back to one of the two people in the deal, then they can work out an arrangement for that 25%, therefore it wouldnt be considered a tax. Maybe I am missing the barn door with your comment but thats what I understand.

·
·
·
·

And you can't compare Steem to tron. Steem is a app specific blockchain built around PoB concept. Tron is a general purpose blockchain where you can build anything like it's ETH. Steem was built for a set of task and cut out all the outside noise (IE Steem isnt trying to be a world computer or decentralized could storage for vids etc) - where as Tron is trying to be a world computer and is not limited persay. Just apples and oranges when talking token distribution model.

·
·
·
·
·

I guess we agree to disagree on this then. Not that it matters much.

·
·
·
·
·
·

It matters a little, because I'm reading the thread. Do you mean something other than curation rewards when you say "tax"? If you mean curation rewards, can you go into more detail about why you consider it a tax?

·
·

There will be no apps if people only try to game the system. User are the backbone.

·

Agree that profit maximization is main reason many are here. Also your other point was very important: “You get the behavior you encourage” there are no secrets in life only denial.

·
·

Agree

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

When you first brought up your proposal, I think 50/50 reward change had ​larger support while other parts had some resistance​. 50/50 makes complete sense to me. At the very least it should be tried by itself.

·
·

Much more, it would bring more investors to #steem. Curators would then find joy spending as much time as content creators because they will have a good ROI on their investment.

·
·
·

@ned, are you reading this? Listen to the userbase

Strongly disagree with the need to increase curation.
The system will be so easily gamed.

The concept of curation is cool when you look at it from the way it's supposed to work.

50% curation will allow whales to cast huge votes that capture the lion's share on a post and then buy votes to scoop most of the curation.

I imagine this already happens with 25%.

In my opinion all curation should be optional to be determined by the poster. They should also be able to apply curation to resteems.

·

"50% curation will allow whales to cast huge votes that capture the lion's share" - So? A person who invests a lot should get a more significant share of the curation over those that invest less into steem, esp if the curator finds the viral post first, nothing wrong with that. And the large SP hodler upvoting benefits the author greatly.

  • "on a post and then buy votes to scoop most of the curation." - If a whale upvoted a post then bought votes afterward wouldn't do anything. A person would have th buy the votes; second, vote buying isn't always instant so people can front run that vote and it could end up not being profitable under 50/50. Buying votes for a post after your upvote for the curation rewards is a waste of time and not fruitful.
·
·

thanks for getting back to me.

Users already sell votes and receive slightly less money than the vote is worth. A big stake holder in control of a upvote bot can already buy votes and make a profit. By throwing down a big upvote first they make even more.

It makes zero sense that curation is forced on us in the consensus layer of the platform. All curation should be optional; to be determined if the OP even wants to be curated in the first place (and for how much).

There is even a allow_curation_rewards boolean in the steemit api that doesn't do anything. It looks like the functionality to disable curation already exists but is just on standby.

I've been here 16 months and I have still yet to even see the equation being used to calculate curation rewards. It alarms me that the way inflation is distributed is so unclear.

https://steemit.com/curation/@edicted/curation-and-sbd-are-broken

Who controls visibility of the posts? The frontends of Steem. Theoretically payout has nothing to do with visibility. The entire curation mechanic is nonsense. This is coming from someone who came up with idea for raising curation to 50% all on my own. I've backtracked on a lot of my old ideas, as they were uninformed.

·
·
·

The reason for curation is token distribution. Without curation, Steem would be in the hands of a few people and never would have been distributed far and wide.
Bitcoin is distributed via miners with open access.
ETH started as ICO + POW; this was their token distribution model. They are going to PoS in which people lock up tokens to secure the network in order to get more tokens. While, not the best distribution model, since ETH has already been disturbed far and wide, they can maybe achieve a decentralized token distribution. However, unlike with DPOS (Steem's consensus model), token distribution isn't nearly as important to the functioning of the ecosystem because there is no stake based voting.

Now, enter DPOS. With DPOS token distribution becomes absolutely paramount, because tokens have voting rights for witnesses that run the blockchain. If you remove curation rewards what you are left with is a "shotgun DPOS" model which is basically a lazy PoS with voting rights.
Shotgun DPOS = Instead of passive token creation, you must manually upvote 10 times a day (vote selling/delegation to bidbots)
Removing curation rewards means removing the incentive to distribute the token and self-voting will be the 100% play in game theory.

A DPOS system with poor token distribution might as well be a centralized database. Sure, you get a lot of benefits of blockchain but the trust element goes out of the window.

Now, if you want to remove curation you would need to remove the upvote IMO because it becomes an obstacle. Just call it how you want it, remove author rewards and curation all together and have the inflation go to interest paid to SP stake hodlers. Make the staking rewards liquid so you can just donate to content creators you want. It is the same thing, forcing people to upvote with low curation rewards is just a janky system.

I'm for trying this. I know it will get gamed, but everything does.

One benefit I would see is that real users would actually earn from reading and voting instead of just posting, which could reduce the noise and allow for easier discovery of content. In addition, I think it might improve engagement.

Authors assume they would earn less, but I am not sure it wouldn't have a counter-intuitive impact and increase both Author reward as well as motivate curation.

Maybe it would be an easier sell at 40/60 Curation vs. Author.

·

When making changes like this you always have to think about the long term effects.

Our main focus should be to make Steem mainstream. Any action towards that is beneficial to every party, no matter what. Imagine the reward pool size with a billion users... Authors should really think about that for a second or two...

So, the effects of increasing curator rewards are:

  • More active curation happening on the blockchain
  • Less vote selling
  • When voting manually, it doesn't feel like you're wasting your voting power anymore
  • We can expect to see quality content do better on the platform, which will lead to -->
  • More eyes on the platform, more users, more resteems, reach outside Steem ecosystem leading to
  • More quality authors joining the platform. And the cycle will repeat and repeat.
  • This will increase the reward pool dramatically and in the long run, establish Steem long into the future. Making sure you can earn Steem by writing still long into the future.

And the effects of continuing the path we're on:

  • Trending is filled with posts paid by the authors themselves. Who benefits? The vote sellers only.
  • Quality content is hard to find. Content created here won't attract outsiders and we just continue to do what we do best here: echo chambering to the maximum
  • Interaction stays minimal
  • Steem is seen as a joke when it comes to quality content by outsiders
  • Active participants are driven eventually to vote selling as everyone else does it and they're losing out if they don't
  • Quality content creators are driven away as their content is never seen nor found without investing hundreds of dollars to get to trending (which has decreasing amount of eyes on it due to the spam of low quality posts)
  • Steem is seen as an unfair place, where quality does not matter, only who has most money to invest and buy votes
  • Steem will stay a niche and some other similar product will become mainstream, eventually killing rewards for everyone here
  • Authors who assumed they would earn less find out that they're now actually earning zero, nada, none and their Steem is now worthless

So how about we bring proof-of-brain back, or at least try to before it is too late for Steem?

@ned @steemitblog @andrarchy @justinw

·
·

Their egos will never allow them to admit their mistake.

All hail, stinc!
Killer of pob.
Adopter of proof of wallet.
Friend of abusers.

·
·
·

Well Ned did eventually admit that he might not be the right person to handle the CEO position so I do have hope he's open to change his position on this one too.

·
·
·
·

I don't think he had much choice.
If our coup makers had presented it as a done deal it would be all over but the crying.
Instead they used the threat of a fork to put him on notice that he likely will get voted off the island, at some point.
Doing that gave him warning, and any fork will now have his influence built in.

I wasn't in favor of taking his money, but i sure supported caging his influence.
At least we pushed him off his high horse.
I bet it will be awhile before he plays his guitar at any more press conferences.

·
·
·
·
·

Yes, you're right. But the communication has picked up, I just wish the progress would be faster. SMT's can't come soon enough

·
·
·
·
·
·

IF they come at all.

·

I know I would buy a lot more SP and run more curation bots if curation rewards were higher.

·
·

What's the way out @Theycallmedan? DO we poll this. Don't witnesses have a say on this?
What about @Steemba?

I think 50/50 on curation is a better deal to grow #steem. I see more investors coming in with this.

·

Same here! 💪🏼🙌🏼💯

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

50/50 is probably the worst idea i have yet to run into on Steemit.

Im for trying it though, just so i can say: Told you so.
Id bet anything it would be scrapped 1 week after launch once vote sellers adjusted and all hell broke loose. After that Kevin and Traf would have to leave STEEM out of shame, settle on Trybe or Minds, never to be heard again. lol

·

I can't agree any less with you @Whatsup on this. This will be a booster for #steem

I am one of those Steemians that are supported by your curation bot and I want to say a big thank you for that Dan. For those of us who decided to go fulltime steeming, support from curators like you make a huge difference and is one of the motivations to keep on steeming even though the prices have been very discouraging for long monhts. It also enables me to give back to the community as I have been more into hosting various contests and challenges lately. Thanks again for making all this possible. You have been such a bright spot in the Steem community.

As for the 50/50 rewards, we should definitely give it a try at least and see how it goes.

It has been working well over at smoke.io but the amount of users are much lower and it has been pushed from the beginning. I know that there people have been growing significantly because people who are staked like myself don't have to post to earn, just vote and have some fun.

Personally, I think it would introduce more reason to stake the F up and spread wider.

Curators on steem should be appreciated even more. I'm curating about 40 people for more than a year with @dcooperation , I don't upvote myself, I never powred down. But @dcooperation still small, it's really hard to make something from curation or content creation. One year of hard work and the vote is only $0.38 now. I never sold my steem power and I don't think I will do someday.

Some people are just holding their power and don't even curate or delegate. Some of them just left steem with letting that power not active there. It's really hard to keep curating and being positive.

But the good thing that more people are using now dapps and they are really helping people to be positive about steem. We need more people curating or maybe just find the active curators and delegate to them some power. People always can improve everything if they want.

But we still have a lot of opportunities here and that should make us all happy. I can even write a book about steem and the curation here. lol

huge points man. love the idea of 50-50. i think the rewards pool would get spread out so much more.

it would help retention for content creators as the more votes gets spread out across the platform. i know i appreciate the votes i get. but someone else might give up after a few months of creating without any traction.

50-50 is a great idea. would love to see it. thanks for the food for thought to end the week man.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

Whatever happens, I hope it happens soon. Starting to hear crickets out there.

Posted using Partiko Android

·

Agree! We should do it and try it out. I’m for it 😀

Posted using Partiko iOS

“I’m a business man, don’t get it twisted” best quote of the day. 😂

I’m more and more liking this 50/50 thing. We should get the ball rollin’ and try it out. Maybe on the next hardfork, it can be implemented. 😎

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

Ya, with blocktrades and the worker proposal system, Steem needs to HF that in the near future to implement, would be nice to get curation fixed then as well.


This one takes me back. To my mind, the original plan, n2 rewards and 50/50 curation was ideal.
I shot a quick explainer/breakdown on exponential rewards exactly one year ago.


For the record I think we've come too far in this direction to change now; and we'll eventually end up with the same result, as dapps add more users and dilute whale voting power.

·

Keep sharing this video Matt, it's a good-un.

A good point regarding n2 or n-something is the ability to pull down a farcically rewarded post with a small stake. Linear has killed that, and although there are flag schemes to try and pool down-vote SP, it's not really scratching the surface.

·
·

Yes, the take-home is that n2 gives you more influence (up or down), the bigger the current payout.

·
·
·

Right, thanks.

Would it be OK to link your video in a post I have planned?

·
·
·
·

Absolutely. Go for it.

·
·
·
·
·

Thanks. If it fits in nicely and the post deserves it, I shall :)

Thank you for a positive solution!
I understand the consternation about economics, but we need to be honest, most of us are interested in making money here on Steemit, but in varying degrees... So we figure out what makes money and we do that. If we want different behavior from what we see here now we have to reward it. While it’s true that downvotes hurt bad behavior, a more widely applicable system would reward good behavior. Focus on rewarding good content and see the profit motive work. It built many economies. Dan I thank you, forward thinking always wins over vestigial behavior. The rest of us have to also try to reward content we value.

·

I agree! It’s time to stop complaining and downvoting randomly. Do something positive with a Bot! The BidBots make money and are probably going to be part of the platform for a long time. But rewarding quality with Steem so people can power up instead of paying for BidBots is one solution which will help.
Thank you.
I second the motion above👏👏👏

·

Agree. Incentivize the behavior you want to see. In ancient England now the U.K., the penalty for pickpockets was public hanging. Do you know what crime was rampant at public hangings? Pickpocketing!
Nobody thinks their going to get caught.
Make the system pay good for quantity you get quantity, pay better for quality!
🤠💲

Posted using Partiko iOS

As a plankton I like the 50/50 split. I spend more time curating than writing. I have never been much of a writer. I really believe that ENGAGEMENT as pushed by @jongolson and encouraged by @rishi556 have enabled me to grow without the need to purchase STEEM with fiat, as I do not have the disposalable income or easy ability to do so.

Posted using Partiko Android

I would go along with 50/50 as I see more opportunity for everyone. It's easy to sell your votes, but not if you could make double or triple holding onto them. I see curation as another way of earning in the future and one of the reasons why I take it so seriously and don't understand why others don't. If you can make between 4 and 5 SP per 1000 SP held each week why sell your vote for less than half that.

I'm still in favor of 50/50, and have been for a really long time... it would make curation a more worthwhile endeavor, which would (I believe) drive up the social aspects, which would strengthen the community and help with retention. Stronger community would also help on the attracting new members front, because a more legitimate case would exist for pitching that "there's something worthwhile, here." I see a lot of "+" marks in different "win" columns.

There's some faulty (or limited) logic in the *"4x rewards" allure. There's an omission. Namely that "You can earn 4x more via leasing to bidbots, BUT there's a good chance that by doing so, you'll be participant to driving the price of Steem towards zero as reasons for end-user participation dry up." But everybody tends to elegantly step around that particular turd in the living room... because it's easier to pitch short term gains than long term investment.

Of course, all changes tend to bring about a flurry of activity among those whose primary objective is to game the system.

·

Facts. Selling votes equals more Steem but that doesn't necessarily mean more fiat. If we do whats best for the platform, the price of Steem rises with it, we should aim to align the values that make it natural for investors to drive value to the platform.

I always have to wait for my dog to vote before I can use the bidbots. He's so slow and he tried to move the mouse with his nose so its so damn annoying. And if I don't let him vote, he gets so pissy and BARKS at me all day cuz of all the curation he misses out on.

But for real, I think that the 15 min cooldown should be removed. If you see good content, go vote for it right away. I sell my votes to help pay for some bots I run, but have other accounts that I do 100% manual curation from. Well, one of them is automated manual(I submit posts to my bot which votes oldest post when the account hits 100% to ensure biggest vote is given). Curation is an important part of posting. Does something need to be done to make bidbots less useful? Maybe, but they are like advertising. Those who can afford it(businesses) should use it, but it's still possible to be successful without them. I RARELY use bidbots, only plan on using them to promote posts about things that will help others(ex: @giftgiver). Just look at @jongolson. He promotes something I highly agree with. ENGAGEMENT. Engage with others and you'll do so much better than if you don't.

·

I just feel the playing field isnt even, and curation is being left out to dry for some odd reason.

·

Agreeeeeeed ! ♥
remove 15min cooldown
Manual Human can't beats the Autobot !
there's no reason to wait 15min to voting !

if this removes autobot sets 0:00 time to vote and then VP RC goes to Zero !!!

Read the contents and Communicate and Curate is Much more Good for Steem Virtuos Circulation !

also Dtube Curation !!!
is they read or watch those lots of ceated Dtube contents created every moments ???

Posted using Partiko Android

Yes - you nailed it here. People get scared when they hear '50/50' because they feel like they'll lose rewards on their posts. Instead, it will be more worthwhile for people to start upvoting (ha, or even buy STEEM to so they can 'earn from reading' - not everyone is a content maker!). As a nice bonus our trending page would be filled with content instead of just being an overview of people who post 'a just nice enough piece of text so I can legitimize my vote buying'.

As always, people are creative and we're unable to predict how a new system will be ab/used, but in principle I'd be pro a 50/50 split.

Your support has not gone unnoticed! (Is that a double-negative?! You know what I mean!!)

Speaking from the perspective of a plankton (but slowly and surely Powering Up), I agree with the 50/50 split between content creators and curators.

Curators deserve to be rewarded, especially in this current model where selling your vote would yield a better ROI. We can't expect charity, but we can create a system that rewards those who are charitable.

For now though, a big THANK YOU to you, Dan, and all Curators of STEEM (including the mighty green ones!)..

Thanks again, @theycallmedan!!!

Could an incremental approach to change be an easier pill to swallow? You might not be able to get people that rely on the old system to buy into slashing their own throat, but it might be easier to take an incremental tweak and see sort of approach. You'd think that any tweak in the allocation should produce a measurable result, with any tweak in the favor of curators being a good thing. So maybe you could do a 5% quarterly bump with milestones attached to it until you get to the ideal 50%. The slower incrementation would give time for the people with big stakes to adjust under a new regime. If a milestone didn't get hit, the progression could be reevaluated.

·

As long as selling votes or delegating to bid bots far outweighs curation, we will always have the issues we have today. I believe it's 50/50 or it wouldn't work as planned.

·

I also agree that you can't sustain this economy long term if the incentives are only based on the spirit of giving. The incentives need to be skewed more towards participation.

If that's going to motivate the whales to vote, it would be good if it were implemented ... I'm just a small fish and I vote for other small fish that I think have good publications, but I do not see whales supporting them.It is as if the whales were on another side of steemit, there are very few whales that I see that support small fish with good content. For example @blocktrades and you @theycallmedan, I have seen that you support small fish and communities of minnows with votes or delegations, and it is worth mentioning and applauding.

Good morning DAN . im aware what are you doing on this platform. Really you ate very helpful . You are helping lots of small account to grow up. Somtimes i also get upvote from you thanks for your support. Thanks for spreading love in the form of steem .
Im a great fan of your video and its thumbnails.
Really you are very kind
Love you DAN

It is a breath of fresh air to have you coming on Steem @theycallnedan. You have given a lot of us hope to work hard writing great content, to keep at it during these hard times. 50/50 is a good idea to try and we can see how things go. Sure, if it raises the level of quality and engagement. I am all for that. Plus this gives the newbies whom we are trying so hard to help some chances to get seen and rewarded for their hard work. I notice that most genuine newbies coming on are trying very difficult to get their work curated. And soon they give up which is understandable. So we try to get them onto platform onto communities that work on curation. Powerhousecreatives is doing a great job on this. Recently I saw some great contests running by @flamingirl that is quite inspiring so I try to get these newbies to join. Curation should be top priority for the growth of Steem blockchain here.😎

Posted using Partiko Android

Dee thoughts here @Theycallmedan. Indeed, I see your big heart for the growth of #steem.

Curation is the mainstay of this blockchain and its a value that's worth more than we think. Like @Surpassinggoogle would say, curation is more than the upvotes, resteems and comments form a part of it and that's what I teach newbies in my creativity hub.

Like you always do, I see you create so much amass of time to read through good contents before placing upvotes. This has personally boosted my contenting prowess and I hope others too have improved. Blogs shouldn't just receive upvotes because they are posted. There should be recoverable values in posts. With this reasoning of yours, more sanity would be brought into the blockchain and bidbots would have to look for better ways of investing in the system.

We must trully mine the HUMAN prowess as this blockchain had proposed.

On 50/50 on curation, it will be a good deal as it will encourage more investment to #steem. Indeed curation would become as awesome as content creation.

Steem definitely needs more focus on curation to draw in new viewers and better authors. It’s a bit depressing to write an in-depth article, perform a project write up, or post a series of photos get a few cents or dollars for it only to see a news bot get $20 of Steem for linking a article. Some of that $20 is paid for but a lot isn’t. I guess it’s like that on every platform though, playing the “game” right can beat out quality.

Posted using Partiko iOS

As one of those fortunate "content guys" who has been the beneficiary of your kindness, I just want to say thanks. But ALSO, I'd like to chip in two cents here.

I think Steemit needs to continue to do everything and anything we can to IMPROVE CONTENT at the cost of undeserved (and unearned) high rewards for poor content.

If people can post a picture of their cat and get 20-40-100-1,000 times what a person who writes a well-written and well-researched 1000-word essay gets just because they stumbled across the platform in 2016 rather than 2019, that's a serious problem for the future of the platform, imho...

As a writer and not as much of a curation guy, I would say I'd be more in favor of 40-60 (C-A) to start, but I could go along with the 50-50 and see how it goes for awhile, for sure.

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK, Dan! A lot of us would not be here if it weren't for the rare people like yourself.

Hey Dan. Yeah, I agree about 50/50. It would make true engagement more profitable. Also, it would incentivise a whole new catagory of person to come to steem... the consumer. Something we desperately need as I think steem has a skewed ratio re creators/consumers. As it became more profitable to curate, it wouldn't surprise me if content specific websites came to steem hunting for talent. With a modest investment they could both earn through curation while sourcing material for their websites. It's a win win as content creators would simply be getting extra opportunities while receiving vote support for what they're already producing. All this is purely a hypothetical situation. One thing is for sure, 50/50 would help tackle vote selling and incentivise more active curation habits by large stakeholders, similar to what you do. It gives me hope that some whales do understand the simple fact that the draw of steem to the average user is that they will be organically rewarded for quality.

I remember there was a lot of talk about 50/50 near to steemfest from a few people and there was meant to be a meet up but I don't think it happened in the end. Either that or I missed it in the chaos of Krakow.


Some of you may know I run a curation bot for content creators I see putting in the effort. The bot upvotes around 150-200 Steemians every day for around 1-2$+ a pop.

I didn't know you ran a curation bot. I'm not gonna beat around bush here cause it's not in my nature to beg. But it is in my nature to ask though 🙂 I was wondering if you could consider me for curation support from your bot? I'm a steemian who has been here for 20 months, producing on average 4-5 high quality posts per week. I've powered up 90% of everything I've earned here and worked my ass off in the past, during the market peak when steem was super busy, curating for curie and working in various discord communities. Right now, I put in as much time as I can on twitter promoting steem with Seven77 Push up challenge. As you know, I recognize and jump on opportunities when I see them as with the Brian Armstrong CoinBase tweet. I'm putting an ocdb vote on nearly all of my posts now so an early vote on my posts should return decent curation.

Anyway, that's the hard sell over. Thanks for all you do for everyone.

Less people would buy votes if more people CURATED and more people would curate if it was more profitable. And what happens if more people curate? - Authors get more money so you end up making more money when more people curate.

bingo!

I believe that healing 50/50 would help, among other things, to generate much more quality content. In addition, I would avoid how you indicate the business of buying / selling votes

Great thought provoking post - here is my waffling on thoughts haha..
My experience with Steem has been a mixed one, but I have to say right now I'm borderline hanging around.

Many of the people I brought to Steem have left when the $ worth plummeted, ads came on, yet their contents on get rewards for 7 days? ok I get it, its a psychological thing to get fresh cool content on the platform, but there has to be more for the content owners... before it lives on forever delivering value to STeEm (the balance isn't right, and people feel like they are being had - social media to me is more about how you feel ).

Instead of leaving I try to invest my ideas and spare time and have tried to get involved. I firmly believe for the casual poster Steemit is a good place, but making $10 for your rare brown hyena cub photo's is only going to take you so far.

I'm a self taught programmer (small fry dev wannabee) and my Bro makes basic games puts them on Steam for download and few $ to get food on the plate. Our latest project was to have Steem rewards linked to a off platform PC game - yeah it ain't gonna change the world, its hard work but fun - it will appear to a group/certain type of community only.. Lots of STeem apps will appeal to different groups, if you set the reward balance right and the right people get some just and fair treatments theses small communities with thrive...but they need support. Too much support to the infrastructure and crypto DEV is happening and not enough spreading of the wealth..People see this and it leads to selfish behaviors.

If everyone just has a shot others will see all the different ideas and development going on - Steem needs to get out there as a happening place to develop on (with fair rewards for trying). You don't need to be an expert off the bat.

It would be great is someone would look at the small time projects and go you know what that's pretty cool, here's $999 worth of Steem. Power it up and keep being a good Steemian. If you suceed, donate $999 to the next project you see coming up (build a supportive dev steemian culture). If someone started doing that and the word got out, you would have ideas and dev's beating down the door.

For now, it's the big witness's and people with the big plans that get the support. People with money and making money, helping each other to make more...some of the true innovation is being drowned out.

Haha just my few Steem worth to add to the discussion - but I assume my voice will be drowned out again as I'm not whale or infrastructure supporter.

50:50 Good !

but What if Just set Autopilot Curating and Never Reads or Watch video Contents created ?
steem is not just autopilot curating or just upvote rewards !

communication with Comments is important !
except Partiko who's gonna autopilot curating to COMMENTS ?

Thus @bluengel Never use at Once Autopilot upvote bot !

read watch as many as possible Created Contents investing much more almost all time not for just how much rewards !

Community without Communication is already failed and will fallen !

Posted using Partiko Android

·

There will always be people who consume content, like myself. However, as an investor, it becomes impractical to read everything I upvote, that is why it is the content creators themselves I invest in and trust to make great content.

·
·

thanks for replying !

Posted using Partiko Android

EDIT: As a buyer of steem and an avid reader, make it 50/50. It pains me to give this post the vote it deserves 8 hours after it was written. I would have normally just read it without voting - something needs to change.

I think most people are afraid of the 50/50 because the first thing that comes to mind is that they will lose 25% rewards. 25% is a huge deal for people. The initial feeling is basically that the rich will "once again" take even a larger piece of the pie. Leaving the lesser accounts with more crumbs to compete for.

That being said, I am not as convinced as you are. I don't think that whales would curate more and that vote selling and/or delegations towards bid bots etc. would decrease. It might, but I don't think it would make such a big difference. People seem to be rather selfish and greedy in general, so I think most people would prefer 1.5x rather than 1x.

However, I still think this would be a good idea, even if I personally would lose some rewards. I think that some whales and orcas would curate instead of going the current route, and that would ultimately improve the overall experience on STEEM and newcomers would probably stay instead of leaving as quickly as they are today, as they would actually earn something rather than nothing. They would at least have a higher chance.

I think it would be a step in the right direction, even though I'm somewhat skeptical that it would make a huge difference for the majority of the large stakeholders. On the other hand, I don't know any whales or orcas in person, I don't talk with them and I've been ignored most of the times whenever I've tried to communicate with them.

Just do it. Who knows, it might be the exact change we need.

·

What people fail to realize is that in the future when sites built on top of Steem have ad share revenue with the authors, curators get none of that. Curators help authors get seen, and from there, authors can benefit significantly from being seen.

True indeed...To be honest votes really matter for small content creator like me. Every rewards help me to grow , increase my Sp.. I am really grateful towards those who vote me, help me grow here otherwise I won't be able to increase my rewards slowly. Thank you so much for everything you do for steemians.. 🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️🙇‍♀️🙇‍♀️

Even i think the same for the bid bots as i have undelegated my SP way back when i realised that i can do so much with my SP so i decided to help dapps and in the course i delegated almost my entire SP to actifit just to support them as well as to get some tokens.

Really thankful to have people like you @theycallmedan as it really takes a big heart to share away those massive upvotes which you shower on people around still i believe there should be more curators who can curate people so that it could be a sustainable platform for the people who want to be full time over hear.

Posted using Partiko Android

One thing I do like about Steemit is how the more creative you are at gaming the system the more you can make. I think it is a great example of capitalism. The people that figured out how to make money selling their upvotes where very smart. They gamed the system and have earned money. I like the idea of 50/50 split and I am sure there will be some super smart people who figure out how to maximize profits off of it. This is what is great about the Steemit platform. There are set rules and as long as you play within them you can be creative and that creativity might earn big rewards. Great post!!

·

That's the question, if the rewards are really that big if the STEEM price is getting lower and lower ... because all the 'system gaming' doesn't attract real investors and new users.

·
·

That is a good point

I think an important point you make but maybe did not link to each other is that what you consider charity also serves as a magnet to attract and motivate content creators and creation to grow the ecosystem. This adds value and demand to Steem Power over time which would increase the value of your stake over time although not in income. It is like the difference between a coupon paying bond and a zero coupon bond; coupon paying bond will pay you an interest periodically without regards to the value of it but at the end, it is worth the same you put in. On the other hand, a zero coupon bond will require you to put less in and will increase in value over time for a large payout but without the payments. We need to find the right balance in between.

·

It boils down to the fact people will sell votes over curating, on a massive scale, and I don't see how that trend will magically stop unless we change the incentives and even the playing field.

Seems nearly every steemian I respect is in agreement with this 50/50 split. I don't think things could get worse so I'm also all for it. Can we push this on the up coming alliance proposal winner and apply pressure to have this implemented? Something potentially game changing like this being possible would likely get a massive response from registered voters like myself that are uninspired by the process thus far. No offense to all the hard working people pouring their blood sweat and tears into governance. We must take action and force the changes we wish to see or what's the point of this platform? Currently it's rigged and that trumps any idealism in my book...

Posted using Partiko Android

I have always been skeptical about this but from your analogy and the comments I have read, maybe it is a good idea but it might get gamed. There is always a loophole to exploit.

I think more people will curate if there were more consumable content and diversity. That's my take.

So how do we implement this if we want to give this a try? I am more about action now, less talk.

don't even speak about that numbers, i need like a year for that steem.

i know, investment and all that, i am just kidding :D

interesting view, it could work. at the beginning it would surely sucks for small creators to get 0.5 steem and not 1 steem, but maybe grow with more curation. and maybe people would continue to curate posts that earn the most so almost nothing would change.

I think what would be great is a sliding scale. A sliding scale would be that as you increase to the SP level where curation has a lot of earning potential the amount you get for curation increases. This would not only immediately benefit the large stakeholder curators but would create an incentive to power up to transition from "worker" to "investor".

·

This is interesting, I'll poke around at it in my head and get back to you with my 2 cents.

maybe that's good idea so that if the curators won't hesitate to upvote a person if they found it nice content. On the other hand, curators can also earned big amount. The flow will be balance.

Posted using Partiko Android

@theycallmedan looking on the positive side, the 50/50 share would enhance quality content and genuine engagement. On the long run , it would be a Win- win for most of the users

Posted using Partiko Android

I love healing, more than publishing.
I try several ways, I vote 10 minutes, 15 minutes, etc.
I give comments.
Sometimes the rewards are very low.
I force myself to post something to get a little more reward, but it really is not my strong point.
Well, sunrise and we'll see.

Unfortunately I feel like this is the same argument we had 2 years ago when I first started steem. Nothing ever came of it or changed Steemit the company provided no feedback at all.

There are plenty of ways to improve the system but right now that comes down to steemit the company and until they start taking some action I honestly don't have high hopes for any big changes such as this.

I full agree it is lopsided and that quality curation should matter. I tend to blend about a 85%Auto selling votes and 15% curation at the moment. I use to not and manually do it all but business wise I found it not worth it and just went to selling the votes. I understand in a way its bad but like with everything there is the good and the bad.

Perhaps here soon I will go into less selling but honestly I would love to hear back from steemit for once about the issue and that they are going to do something about it.

I’ll love to attract your bot, I’m try to improve more on my writing skills and arsenal, please can you tell us what and what that attracts your curation bot like heaven?

Yes, we call you Dan!

Posted using Partiko iOS

·

Just keep doing you and the chips will fall where they may. I update my bot every month or so to add new ppl.

·
·

Okay, thanks Dan.

Posted using Partiko iOS

You're obviously a businessman no doubt, and the truth is that 150 to 200 steemians is definitely amazing, truth is the platform dies when every big user there is selling to bots alone and the fact that you're contributing your quota trying to boost users is awesome, sometimes I think the bot owners should lose, I do hope in the future it could change, I mean the the bot usage system

Curation rewards definitely suck bad Dan. Even though I (actually we all are) both content creators and curators I would rather the 50 - 50 split than the existing one.

There are dozens of ways to make better ROI but in the end of the day, all those ways kill the communication and engagement we have.

You know my opinion about bots. I don't really like them...maybe because there is extensive abuse...I hope Steemit devs can fix the curation rewards before we end up with no curators...and eventually no content creators as well...

·

Bots are badass and an absolute must for PoB. I have a million SP; there is no way I can manually curate 200+ post every day without going insane. But what makes me go even more insane is wasting stake, and that is what happens with your SP sits at 100%. I manually curator for about 2-3 hours daily and the rest I put the authors I like on a list to be upvoted. I check the list regularly.

·
·

A bot is like a dog. If you allow the dog to eat the dinner off your table and shit everywhere, then it will every time. If you train the dog not to do that, it won't. We have to give the bots the right incentives, and if we point them to curate good content as opposed to selling the upvote to the highest bidder, we have a whole different game.

·
·
·

I’ll drink to that

All I can is that, I understand you @theycallmedan. With a large stake like yours, it is easy and tempting to game the system, but you choose to buidl the community with it. This is character!!! Respect my friend.

It will be nice for those you support to think long-term and hodl and power up and at the end of the day the value will increase for everybody.

Fully agree with curation 50/50, myself trying to upvote new members, because it’s so hard to be noticed and motivated in beginning and how many of them just give up so quick...

Posted using Partiko iOS

Not into bots I’d prefer to upvote for posts I like, it’s supposed to be a social network site not a bot site . Thanks

·

When curation is done based on whos who vote at the right time get paid the most, bots become a must. However, if the bots upvote great content creators then it's worth it. I can't manually upvote 200 people a day, and if I dont I am burning money.

·
·

Do you even read any of these posts?

·
·
·

My comment was longer than your question, so of course I read the comments.

·
·
·
·

Meaning what exactly?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

🤣

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·

!dramatoken

·
·
·


You've got DRAMA!

To view or trade DRAMA go to steem-engine.com.

It will be painful for small time earners if 50/50 would get implemented since there are only small number of whales here in this community and most of them circlejerk @theycallmedan

·

I think authors would get paid more, because with higher curation rewards, people need content to vote on. More whales would join curation groups, that is my guess.

Definitely agree with 50/50, but the real solutions is SMTs. I don't think you have the right perspective with how to use SMTs. It's not about base layer vs SMTs. It's about using SMTs as a test before making changes on the base layer.

The Steem blockchain has now had more than 20 hardforks, most of which were made to correct a broken part of the steem reward system. When Steem wasn't linear, people said linear rewards will solve everything. Now everyone says 50/50 curation will solve the problem.

The real problem, in my opinion, is the following: we don't know. A change might seem good (and truly be good), but we never know what NEW problems will arise. So instead of having steemit inc waste their time on implementing 50/50 rewards, then complain to them a few months later about another problem with the rewards, we should let them instead develop SMTs.

Once we have SMTs, each coin will have its own rules. One of them will have 50/50, another won't, and we can sit back and see the results. Once we see the results, we know clearly which solution we prefer, and implement it.

·

While on paper that sounds fine but it's not easily accomplished. In order for SMT to prove to us anything you first need a successful SMT that gains liquidity by getting on to exchanges. THen needs to have high DAU with a big community. From there we can see if 50/50 works, in what, a year if we are lucky? Somethings seem obvious to me, and if no one can give me a valid reason why 50/50 wouldn't work better, sometimes you just need to pull the trigger. ALso, to assume SMTs will just work without fixing the base layer is also working on faith and not substance.

·
·

Not to mention, said SMT that gains liquidity and massive popularity would need to be willing to have it structured as 50/50. A lot of moving parts that aren't just 100% gimmes.

·
·

True. I have to agree with you. But also, constantly upgrading the base layer will lead us to never getting SMTs.

What I’m hoping for is that when @bocktrades releases the SteemDAO, someone (a witness or community dev) will take on the 50/50 curation as it doesn’t seem that complicated to do. While steemit inc focuses on SMTs (they should be done with RocksDB soon).

But for someone to take on that project it will maybe need some pushing, counting on you! ;)

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·

I will def be raising this as a proposal on the new DAO put out by blocktrades. - Until then I would love a ton of healthy debate on the matter.

We are new to the platform and hold a decent amount of steampower. This was a useful video to us.

Think about a user who joins with zero SP and starts creating good content. Keeps patience for two months and then leave the platform.

Then big steemit people come up saying - bring your friends, ditch facebook, ditch instagram because they are not paying.

Porblem is, neither the user is expecting it there. But on steemit an average user without any sp in its wallet expect when they put hours on a blog.
But it does not happen.

That's the reason the mass left last year and I don't think this platform can ever compete the bigger platform because of this issue.

·

And yeah how does the 50/50 help an average user who does not have sp and put their soul in their content?
What a joke seriously

·

Part of the problem is the ephemeral pay out period for posts. By the time a new post for a new creator is discovered, it has already passed its payout period. It takes a tremendous level of patience and persistence creating quality content for little or no rewards before you start to develop a following. This is however no different than other platforms, most content creators on other platforms create a lot of free content prior to seeing any sort of real monetization. At least in those cases the period for monetization is much longer than a week.

I think the whole selling votes thing is stupid. It rigs the entire system and it becomes a corrupt platform. I spend all day long upvoting great content that sometimes get only 3 or 4 cents in rewards, while people selling and buying votes are making all the money. How can we promote quality vs quantity in a system this rigged? 😱

·

The system incentives people to sell votes or self upvote because that pays the most. We just need to adjust the incentives to make it more profitable to curate. It's pure business, it's not about good or bad.

·
·

Oh, I think it is about good or bad. You said people sell their souls for a 4x return, but you haven't sold yours. Neither has @trincowski, or most of those whom I follow. That's because you understand good and bad, and choose good. You can do that and still be a businessman. Arguably, a better one!

Of course, there are many for whom it really is pure business. For the system to work well for all of us, it is important to get the incentives right.

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·
·

I am saying business doesn't know good or bad. Most people will do what they believe economically benefits them the most in the shortest time. .1% of people are long term investors, that is why lotto tickets make billions everywhere. No, in business it is a matter of incentives. If you want something to succeed you don't wish and hope for good, you build a foundation that makes doing good profitable.

I do agree something needs to be done to the reward algorithms of the platform and I'm up for any change to test. If that is 50/50 rewards, none-linear rewards, or whatever. Although being a small fish, have a little power from one of the big curation teams in our community and go out and curate music related post every single day. Over time, my job becomes on one hand easier, quicker, but on the other hand the number of interesting posts deserving a boost is decreasing as well. That in itself frustrates me, but still, I cant give up curation, so it seems; I still like to give those who make an effort, bring some interesting content to the platform (large or small form), supporting the idea behind a blogging service, a little support.

But even the 2$ votes I can hand out, doesn't let the majority of the authors producing interesting posts, continue on similar level. Many of the better content creators come and go, or stay and lower their content quality.

Lately, I'm wondering if the idea of Steemit to be in all-inclusive blogging community is sustainable. More and more apps are launching on Steemit with their own user interfaces tailored to the content their service is geared to, showing their users only the content created through their service, while Steemit and sister user interface (busy and others) are still exposing all content on the Steem blockchain. Maybe Steemit shall do the same? Maybe launch a new Steemit token, like many of the other apps are doing?

All dApps are gamed, but I for instance like what SteemHunt does. Small fish can get real influence within SteemHunt by contributing to SteemHunt, even with almost no SP. At the same time, SteemHunt is moderated, and I think that is one of the key elements Steemit is missing. Some are talking about some free downvotes enabling all of us to become moderators. But then Steemit is lacking something; Users who gets downvoted need the possibility of appealing the downvote. ONO (the one from China) wanted to launch something, but for whatever reason that never happened. But I think, the anarchist way Steemit is working, doesn't work; Not when real money is in the game. Good actors become easily bad actors, greedy. Especially since we are more or less anonymous, with hardly any social control, people are even more easily turned into bad actors. Another effect money has for many is the fact long term is not looked at, yes true investors look long term, but most of us are not true investors. Most of the Steemians are very likely here because some free money can be made. As I said already, I don't see the better content creators stay with the community, they usually try for some little time and then move to something else.

Some are saying: Businesses shall be attracted to Steem. Cool, I like that. But to make a difference, to bring the new blockchain based money to a larger audience through business and brands, the services itself must be at competing level with whatever is available in this world, mostly in the fiat world. I didn't see any Steem based App being more than a mediocre service compared to what I can find outside crypto space.

BUT....long story short, lets change a set of parameters in the Steem distribution algorithms and see what happens. I propose to plan 4 consecutive rounds with changes, with each change running for a quarter. After 12 months, we determine what works best.

Business is business, but hell, good content is primarily not aimed at good rewards, but at consumption by the target audience! Everyone is on about rewards (me too, in a sense, I must admit!), but aren't we losing sight of the ultimate objective, namely a community benefitting by sharing valuable knowledge and insights, so elevating quality of life?

We have to eat yes, and survival is particularly difficult for authors coming with nothing but a wealth of valuable experience and wisdom to share, knowledge sometimes gained under difficult circumstances - so at least a minimum income is important for the sake of keeping such contributors productive, but I can bet my bottom dollar that getting their messages across is often more important than alleviating their own circumstances.

Wouldn't a scheme directly generating rewards for getting authors more avid followers make sense in this regard?

·

Really it comes down to the fact you can earn 4x the amount of Steem then any other method. Regardless of what the point of Steem is, if we want to see the currency used to find great content, what PoB was invented for, then we need to somehow reduce the gap between selling votes and curating. It's really that simple, most people will continue to sell votes or self upvote (even if they dont want to create content, some will put out a few lines just to selfupvote because its the best ROI) - Ecosystems run on incentives, if you make one thing lopsided, it strangles the rest of the system.

·
·

I cannot get myself to use upvoting bots, or to selfupvote - it simply does not gel with me. If I have ever done that, it was by accident. Quality posts and quality curations are all that really make sense to me and I am grateful for any moves making those the more viable options.

I have not watched the video and is not the first time this subject is covered here. Personnaly I am not in favor to increase the curation at 50%.

The fast majority of the curation on the platform is already made on auto curation trail. Someone post and then 300 upvotes in less than 15 seconds. ;)

Posted using Partiko Android

Glad to see this curation issue back on the agenda... I'd agree with a move towards 50-50 and have long been in favour of what @kevinwong and @trafalger have to say.

Nothing to add other than cheers for raising it again!

Posted using Partiko Android

Steem needs real world promotion like celeb endorsement, maybe sponsor non-blockchain related events. Maybe brand a sports arena - the Los Angeles Steem Arena.

·

There's a lot of people with decent sized followings already here we do a poor job of taking care of.

I'd also like to add in that programmed malicious downvotes that are often purely ideologically-driven should somehow be addressed in a future HF too...Maybe by requiring "proof of mind" to downvote, and an even more expensive SP hit for downvoting than upvoting...?

A lot of newbies are being driven off by certain...well...I'll just leave that hanging chad right there...

I think it makes perfect sense! It’s a win win situation and user retention would sky rocket. It would be cool if authors could also choose the percentage of payouts to curators like I have seen on Choon. I knew that boy was yours hehehe ... good looking out and being a ninja philanthropic. Respect man!

Posted using Partiko iOS

Congratulations @theycallmedan! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You made more than 11000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 12000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

You can upvote this notification to help all Steem users. Learn how here!

They could do a test and let users be able to change a setting on their account that would give some more or even all of the rewards for their posts to curators. I think that would be interesting and could cause a culture change at the same time allowing users to experiment with what would work better for them.

Wow! Touching sensitive theme ;)

Posted using Partiko Android

Wow this is outstanding @theycallmedan you are really awesome 😍😘 great work

Posted using Partiko Android

This post has been included in the latest edition of The Steem News in 10 posts - a compilation of the key news stories on the Steem blockchain.

Wow so many things i still do not understand on steemit.....

I agree it needs to be balanced, but I also think microcuration needs to stop. People doing 0.1% upvotes when they have 100sp or less in their accounts is not really curation.
I would actually like to see opt in first. I would be fine with higher curation for some posts, but not all. For example if I want to do 25% curation 25% beneficiaries 50% me that should be cool. Or if I feel like 33 curation 67 me fir one than 50-50 for another, as well.

Posted using Partiko Android

I am in the trenches trying to help redfish succeed on steem as I have been doing for the whole two years I have been here. I think we need a lot of little people to grow if this place I love is not to die.

Whatever happens at the top - I deal with it. I really have no time to engage up there though. Sometimes I give comments, but my voice is not strong enough to sway whales.

As the recipient of some of your votes, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I do say thank you each and every time I see one of those big votes - maybe you can hear? I have a lot of little people supporters and very few with your power - grateful, grateful, grateful...

Great idea with 50/50! Its time to change some main points here to get the people back to the platform

I really cringe every time i see people talk about selling votes. A vote is an excercise of a right to agree or disagree with sometning . It's your view and opinion on something. It's sad that so many people always use this term even when they disagree with the concept . And no, sorry i don't have an alternative better term. Rant over 🙂