Do you really think increasing curation reward pool distribution back to 50% is the solution Kevin? I am not so sure. It might be better than what we have now, but we had that before and it came with it's own host of problems.
Still, what we currently have here is trash, and most people knew it would be since before it was implemented. All the issues with broken economics and vote buying were predicted correctly long ago. The economics need fixed, and in short order.
Any rational investors will stay the hell away already if they read any of these posts..
They are staying away. And have. Perhaps the top witnesses should demand changes? Or perhaps they are content just getting huge payouts.
One of them top witness quoted me $12,000 to hire devs to code the changes, with no guarantee that it'll get approved of course. I don't even know what to think about it.
Lol at that. The "top witnesses" are supposed to be the skilled coders who can help build steem right? Plus they are being handed shitloads of steem, perhaps use their boatloads of money to fix the fucking system. But they won't because so few here give one shit about anything other than themselves.
It shouldn't have to all fall on the shoulders of people like you Kevin. You shouldn't be one of the only ones talking sense.
Fascinated to learn this fact from you. Feels like someone is wiping someone else's arse.
whoa! Mind you, from when I looked at the code in the past, there isn't really an "economic engine" in there; affected code is scattered everywhere.
It won't solve everything, but it will give more incentives to stakeholders to actually vote on good content instead of playing only with themselves.
Dtube did an experiment, where they gave back a share of the curation rewards to voters and it incentivized me a lot to vote higher/more often on dtube posts instead of normal ones.
I agree with that for sure. The current curation reward likely just isn't sufficient to facilitate actual curation. That said, we did have 50% in the past, and it DID result in much smaller rewards for content creators. So while it may solve a curation problem in part, it opens up a new issue.
Yeah I noticed, it was a (IMO) really good idea and certainly had to have incentivised voting on DTube's content.
Many people give the reasoning of authors investing more time into creating content, than curators, thus they receive the higher share. But it's not only about that.
Curators are also, most of the time, stakeholders. Meaning: it's not only the direct work done that is being rewarded, but the actual faith of holding a lot of money as Steem.
80$ vote-value doesn't sound much, but it requires 3,000,000 Steempower currently. Which was nearly 30 million dollars at high-time.
So I believe, by giving stakeholders a bigger share of the pie by default, more are incentivized to give back to others. Because without stakeholders taking the risk of having their investment lose a tremendous amount of value (as right now) - Steem would be worth much less.
"giving stakeholders a bigger share of the pie by default, more are incentivized to give back to others."
How do you feel about the proposition where stakeholders could choose to get maximum available rewards without doing anything or use their stake normally like now?
Wouldn't that separate those who just want maximum value from their investment and those who actually want to shape up this ecosystem with their stake to two different groups and let both do their thing?
Currently the first group is messing up the work of the second and making the system inefficient when it comes to actually rewarding good content.
Do you agree?
Why should those who do nothing, get the same as those who make the effort to curate content?
Good question, you do realize that at the moment those who do nothing (passive vote selling) are getting way more than those who actually curate? It's hurting the platform, yet this behavior continues.
I think I explained the situation well enough here: https://steemit.com/steem/@igster/re-therealwolf-re-justtryme90-re-therealwolf-re-justtryme90-re-kevinwong-lambos-beaches-and-mansions-20181122t170947977z But if that's not the case, I can try and make it more clearer
I do realize that, as I manage SteemSTEM and know quite well how little curators get (even less when you try to distribute the nothing received out to a team of people).
The proposition of letting people have passive income from the reward pool with out curating... I see the logic to it because it could clean up the trending pages and make bidbots less attractive.
I am largely just playing devils advocate with the questions. I would support any number of paths forward, I think at this point its more important that we collectively acknowledge the problem and attempt a solution, than to implement the perfect solution out the gate.
"That said, we did have 50% in the past, and it DID result in much smaller rewards for content creators. "
We already have plenty of content creators, what we need is the best ones to be found and rewarded. For that we need actual curation to happen. Perhaps then we'd slowly start get people to visit Steem to see content and actually view it as a place where quality content can be found easily from Trending.
If Steem would work as intended, this ecosystem would be far larger, and content creators would be getting far more rewards than they are now or ever have before in here. However, we'll never reach that with the way this system is currently working, it's not working at all rather. We need curation to happen, or else every good author will leave anyways since they aren't being found and rewarded like they're supposed to.
Please consider long term effects, there's a lot of moving parts here and if we only consider the immediate effect to only one part of the ecosystem, we'll fail always in the long run.
I am not arguing against any of that, its just more than likely that the problem can not be addressed by one simple change :)
It probably won't fix the problem all together, but there are other propositions that could work well with it. I've mentioned one of them in my comments in this post as well.
What we have back then and what we have now which one is better?
Many other changes were made besides just the reduction of the curation pool to 25% instead of 50%. The worst change IMO was going to a pure linear relationship between SP and vote strength. It partially solved the issue of small holders feeling like they had no effect on post rewards but opened up pandoras box for vote buying to become the most profitable use of stake.
The answer to your question is neither was better. Both what we used to have and what we have now suck for their own reasons. Figuring out the way forward (which is what kevin is trying to do here) to a better solution is needed. We have plenty of examples from the past of what doesn't work. Lets learn from it.
Youve now mentioned two problems: curation and reward curve. 50% and n^1.3 has been proposed. Yet everyone prefects to sit back and not do anything about a system that's had proven before any reasonable doubt to be a shitfest.
I'm not in favor of doing nothing. Id like to see us try to change things, and iterate more frequently until we arrive at an actual workable economic situation. The status quo is broken.