Ok, someone explain to me how a post like this is worth 4k at the time of me posting this?
There is no added value in the post, just piggybacking on past successes with very little even written in the post? I am just curious because I see some fucking amazing artwork, stories being shared, detailed guides on this website getting no reward. Then to see a post like this get this kind of reward? Am I the only one seeing a flawed system here? Or is Steemit really just going to be a group crypto orgy forever?
Making my way through the whitepaper but only about halfway through. Page 20 is where it starts discussing how payouts to posts work. It seems to function on a quadratic formula for votes and according to Zipf's law. That means that widely upvoted posts, which is meant to capture the subjective valuation of lots of people for a particular piece of content, will generate the most revenue.
I suppose as applied to this post what it seems to indicate is that a lot of people really enjoy the content I produce and they are upvoting this post in order to attempt to entice me to create more content on Steem.
When it comes to 'piggybacking on past successes' I think you may need to change the perspective that those past successes are a form of reputation which forms a basis of capital. I remember what it was like to create amazing stories, guides and other pieces of content and not make much from it besides a loyal audience. And now that loyal audience follows me because I gave them so much for free.
Thus, the influence of reputation or audience can be thought of like a piece of capital equipment that multiplies the effort and results in greater productivity. In other words, it enables me to dig holes with a backhoe and bulldozer while other people who have not earned an audience are digging holes with a shovel.
And I have not even marshalled hardly any of my other resources like my email list, podcast distribution, etc. I find Steemit very exciting because it changes many of the incentives for content creation, journalism, social media, etc.
Of course, the answer to being more productive is simple: add more value.
The difference between feelings and facts. I just watched a preacher and a scientist have a discussion. Of course you are both right. I believe that over time the high quality posts will win out but in the mean time this is still a blockchain platform where crypto folks dominate and Upvote crypto content.
@tracemayer fully true, you did a lot in the past, so you giving some steem dollars is making you part in the further success in steem and of course honoring the great work that you have done!
Yea the ¨quadratic formula΅ could need some improvement. I would be more in favor of a linear one, because its more fair.
I am not sure a linear one would be 'more fair' than the quadratic though.
Whitepaper page 17: "Inother words, the reward is proportional to votes squared rather than votes. This mirrors the value of network effect which grows with n squared the number of participants, according to Metcalfe’s Law."
I do think it would be good to include in the votes squared some type of function to take into account and weight based on the voter's reputation. Kind of like how in SEO a link from CNN or Bloomberg is worth more than 10,000s of links from nobody websites.
I really like how Steem has framed the question though. From the whitepaper on page 16:
"The first step in rewarding millions of users is to commit to distributing a fixed amount of currency regardless of how much work is actually done or how users vote. This changes the question from being “Should we pay?”to “Whom should we pay?”and signals to the market that money is being distributed and is being auctioned off to whoever “bids” the most work."
"Inother words, the reward is proportional to votes squared rather than votes. This mirrors the value of network effect which grows with n squared the number of participants, according to Metcalfe’s Law."
That part in the whitepaper sounds strange to me. Metcalfe’s Law is about telecommunication networks where the connections count not about how valuable a blog post is. Metcalfe’s Law could be used to value the steem platform itself or to value a currency, but not to value a blog post. The value of a blog post seem to be linear, not quadratic.
If a post about how to cook a cake reaches 10 persons 10 persons will know how to cook a cake. If it reaches 100, 100 know how to cook a cake not 10000, also the quality of the cake stays the same no matter how much can cook it.
The discussion about the post could be worth more if more engage in.
But even for that we don't need necessarily an exponential payout, because so or so the more votes you get the more visible you are the more votes you get etc...
Not to speak from the follower you get...
This in itself is exponentially, so why make it double exponentially?
Currently your voting power is linear to your steem power. This sounds fair, because in the end its a part of your steem power that is redistributed as post rewards.
Nevertheless the idea of having your voting power increased with your reputation sounds promising. This would also reduce the Self Voting problem.
You have my vote for that!
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to undermine what you have done or have accomplished in other formats away from Steemit. I am more or less trying to understand what I see as a flaw in the current system in my opinion on how revenue is dispersed. Can you honestly say "this" post deserves a 4-5k payout? Considering each post has its own value all other factors other than what is in the particular post is what the value should be based on. Of course, there is value in "loyalty" and a "following" but when it comes to the system of reward a simple, Hi, I am here, a lot of people know me and follow me doesn't really deserve that kind of payout, does it? What about authors like myself who mostly ghost write? Do we not deserve a reward for our work simply because we ghostwrite or use a pen name under the public radar?
The last few weeks I have noticed a trend towards "elitism" and the beginning of what I would refer to as a power struggle between the knowns and unknowns (all of which in a lot of instances have plenty to offer that deserves a reward within the system) starting to poke it's head on Steemit. If it stays on this course, I don't believe Steemit will grow into a massive social media site, but of an elite crypto world social media site, which could be alright if there are enough people to sustain it I guess. I prefer to finally see all kinds of content creators, writers etc finally get paid and rewarded for their work. You said it yourself, it has become common to have to give away your work for free, I surely hope Steemit finally changes the thinking of the world in this regards.
As to your statement about being more productive by "adding more value" - value is subjective and based on individual's perception, the problem I am seeing here on Steemit is there aren't enough voters with similar interests to content creators that hold similar interests, thus leaving many feeling empty. Of course, this isn't "your" problem, it should be a Steemit community issue to tackle for the longevity and good of the system as a whole.
On a side note, your new post "podcast" post is great and deserves its rewards. I enjoyed listening to it.
It is become SteemTradition that intro posts rain MadSteem.
Did someone say orgy?