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

I think.perfect share.. thank you

I don't know much about what the current rewards are like (I'm still learning all this) but wouldn't it be a better idea to do a 50/50 split, so that authors are still getting paid appropriately for their work? I feel like this might discourage authors from creating content. I do like the idea of making curation rewards better, so that upvoting is more profitable for the voter.

·

We had a 50/50 split before vote selling became an issue. The problem is now we are essentially competing against ourselves to make vote selling the less profitable option and 50/50 split isn't going to do that. 50% of rewards split among all curators is less than whales and other top curators can make from selling votes/renting SP.

·
·

I see! Thanks for explaining it to the noob :) I agree, vote selling is a huge problem and if we changed the profitability of voting, we would see positive change in the community

·
·

ok i didnt know that either. makes more sense. but then it makes less likely people would post too. i barely get $1 on a post without some type of bot. what we might see is just a lot of people going for curie awards on people who can make high earning posts, and less output from people who earn pennies.

·
·
·

Perhaps this is because people don't vote and curate like they used to anymore. When it becomes more profitable to vote for others than it is to pinch your own pennies, people will be looking for stuff to vote for because that's how you make money now. If your posts can't compete with top level posts you have the option to become a great curator and earn money that way. As of now, most of the wealth is for sell, fix that problem and see what happens is my outlook.

·
·
·
·

yes agree that needs to be addressed. i would also like to see the number of scam contests killed off, and if they werent making so much on awards upvotes this might address that.

  ·  3년 전

I can definitely see your point, it might do the trick... the whole idea is to create incentives for interaction and that would certainly do it. The only downside to this might be that some clever little sneaky user could create an army of curators, to curate his/her own content and get around it.

We would just have to be vigilant to such behavior.... but I think you are on to something.

·

Right, that already happens and always will, we can't stop people from being greedy and it isn't even our place to do that. The idea I'm proposing is to make it AT LEAST as profitable to curate and share wealth as it is be greedy.

·
·
  ·  3년 전

Yeah clay... I have to say the more I think about it the more I agree... also, don't forget... chicken nuggets...

I don't see how that would solve the issue of bot voting and circle-jerks. As it stands, there aren't all that many whales that make their money from posting; most of their rewards are generated via bidbots and bot curation. How would skewing rewards more heavily toward curation discourage the sort of detached voting habits we see now?

·

My thoughts are we aggressively counter the profitability of using big bots and vote selling. No demand = no supply and we put more rewards into the pull for curation to offset that lack of income. Essentially to earn, you have to have top notch content or vote on top notch content. Content is why people go to websites, what we have right now is more of a lottery system where people are competing for scraps instead of competing to make quality content and better posts.

def agree something needs to be done and yes, curation doesnt pay unless you really have enough experience to play with it. i'm thinking 50/50 might be easier to do, but the issue is once you change the percentages you will also on-board a lot more people hoping to get rich off of it, hence competition. plus you will change the nature of articles we are seeing. personally i see no benefit to writing a longer article. not only do people not want to read it, imho they earn less unless that person enjoys a huge following. so we need to reward not only for curation but also for quality, not just with curie and other curation bots, but with educating people on what comparative quality is and how to reward it proportionately. one thing ive seen on busy.org is a better slider to set rewards. i am constantly wanting to adjust percentages, and the steemit system is... lacking. not that it will happen anytime soon, but i suggest a number of positions that can be preset. getting off topic i know but very good post for further discussion

·

I'm kind of sad the busy.org removed the hide-resteems tab. It is what it is though.

·
·

shoot i hadnt noticed that. yeah it was a great feature

Ok, so I found this post from last year that explains the "lates (at the time)" changes and how it makes it that content creators receive more from the post's reward: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/latest-curation-reward-solution

If I make $1 to $5 on some posts, and right now I get 75% of the estimated rewards, if we switch it to 35% for creators, creators will not be as motivated to create quality content. It will be a huge hit for small creators.

·

That change + hardfork 19 made it to where it's more profitable to sell votes and dump the liquid rewards (which also destroys the price of STEEM) and it's not a debate about whether or not people deserve to be paid for content. The simple fact is that what we are doing right now is unsustainable and you can see the price of STEEM tanking as a result. Sure it will pump again for Smart Media Tokens and I'll be dumping the rest of my STEEM then unless they address the fact that I have virtually no need to actually have STEEM. I do not vote for myself at all, check my posts, I am in the target demographic you described most of the time with my post payouts and sometimes I spike to 10-15 dollars and I'm still saying the same thing. If I was making .40 cents a post I would be saying the same thing as well. When people aren't voting and they're all competing for virtually nothing using bid bots it's all some illusion that anyone is making money other than the handful of people that got in early and mined a lot of STEEM.

·
·

Perhaps the solution is to increase the amount of upvotes from 5 to I don't know, for people to upvote more content, if the upvoting is the problem. The way I see it is that changing the post rewards vs curation rewards percentage will not get rid of bots. Unless there is a clear cut rule about it, they will continue to exist and profit and since there is no rule against it, they are in their rights, which I recognise. I don't think it will incentivise people to upvote content more. It moght make some people upvote content which they would not want to be upvoting, they will begrudgingly upvote. I think the big fish will still have an advantage over the little fish. I think the little fish will lose out even more, because it will not make more people upvote our content. I also think from what I see and know that the people who can't afford to spend too much time on steemit but post excellent content when they do will lose out even more. If a percentage HAS to change, I think 35% to creators is too drastic and unfair. Content creators still deserve to have the majority of a post's reward pool, they took the time to post content which they created, be in on their website, video channel, or specially for steemit. I believe the problem is with bots allowing people who post poor content to bid for votes. I personally would like to see a rule where bots MUST check the content they are to vote on, and if they deem it unworthy, then they send the bidders money back, or something. I don't know what the solution is, but I recognise that bots contribute to it and people who spam links that aren't even their own or copy pate content are also the problem. I don't think changing percentages for rewards will change any of that. We need to find a solution for the root cause of the problem, not the surface symptoms of the problem.

How is the people who when they post, will curate a lot more money, such as Whales, whose upvotes on their own posts can generate a nice little sum of money, how does that make them lose money? I don't understand that part.

The thing with how it is right now is that, if curation goes mostly to those who upvote, how will people writing posts make money at all? The way I see it, is that us little fish will still get buried beneath the sea of larger fish and make very little.

Right now, how things are, Steemit is the ONLY place where I can make a BIT of profit. No where else. Because of my mental and physical state. I am able to generate between $30 and $50 a month. I will upvote my 3 cents and 2 cents and even 1 cent, because I know that even if my voting power has gone down, it's still worth something to someone.

I do not believe that this will solve the problem of greedy Whales. I think this will only perpetuate the problem further and cause the Whales to upvote even less other than each other because they will generate even less from a post. It will not encourage them to upvote the little people.

I think your train of thought is going somewhere, but not quite in the right direction yet. Personally, I think that people who are greedy will be greedy no matter what. These changes won't change THAT.

That being said, I appreciate that you are looking for solutions and coming up with ideas and sharing them. This is how we can find something that works.

But I don't think the problem is in the curation rewards versus the post rewards.

·

I've been on steemit for about 16 months now and I've seen the differences in voting patterns and curation. When you upvote your own content you do not get any curation rewards. The difference is that people will be voting more and the majority of the power on steemit wouldn't be dedicated to bots that you have to pay to use. The problem is right now it's the same thing to sell a vote as it would be to just go vote on new users and promote quality content. What we have right now is people spamming a lot of garbage posts fighting over pennies instead of a lot of quality content making drastically higher rewards. 75% of a 10 dollar post or 35% of 100 dollar post is still more money for the author.

·
·

Hmm, yeah...

I only tried 2 bots, but I find that I make more from the free options when they do select my post.

I suppose that is true about trying to eliminate bots because people get upvoted for content that is not as deserving perhaps as some other content that get buried. However, how do we know this will eliminate the bot factor? I think bots will still exist, Whales will still be stingy, and then honest folk will make even less. Those are all fears, of course, but something to consider in finding the solution.

·
·
·

Bots did not exist in this capacity until the last hardfork because they weren't profitable. Basically we just automated not rewarding people instead of just doing a better reward distribution. 18 forks things weren't perfect and they changed a lot, but this last one is killing the community, I can assure you of that.

·
·
·
·

Well a solution is definitely needed. It will be tougher to find which one. There are Whales who give free curation to Minnows and Red Fish, 1 or 2% upvote which is like $5 and are generous with their votes. So why do Whales need so much from us when we have so little and they have so much? I,ve gotten more from the free upvoters and from kind Whales or Dolphins than from bidding on a bot.

·
·
·
·
·

People are motivated for all kinds of reasons. I can't really judge that. All I can say is since we went 75% author 25% curators... things have become increasingly worse... people stopped voting like they used to, and it's way too profitable to run voting bots.

·
·
·
·
·
·

How was curating percentages before?

Your proposal deserves the attention that its serious study.
Steemit hopefully management will pay attention to it and give your comments.

·

I hope the community does pay attention, because we need to fix this mess.

INspiring
Follow and upvote my post thanks