I've read them and they are very good. I would have offered a slightly different take on some of the concepts but I don't think yours are wrong
For me value in the Steemit and many other systems is linked to time. Time is the ultimate scarce resource. The more time people pass in aggregate on Steemit, writing and reading posts, the higher the aggregate value of the platform. The tokens are "units of account" to keep track and distribute that value
But its kind of hard to evaluate creative content based on time spent.
Some one may spend 30 minutes and create really good content, or spend 3 hours and create absolute shit.
I see the value around here as a reflection of what the community as a whole see as valuable.
Absolutely, there is no simple recipe, we can only experiment and add more influencing factors in order to refine the model - see Ashby's law of requisite variety.
Medium manages somehow - it measures views, time spent on an article (probably in a pretty crude way, I don't know exactly how).
I believe Steemit should draw inspiration from Medium and become more like it in order to improve. Once it reached that level it can and should strive to become even better.
Ohhh shit I'm going down a
juicy rabbit hole, thank you!
I agree with this, though it seems quite a big task to implement what aspects of Medium's reward structure, especially when we don't know the specifics.
You're welcome. You'll probably stumble upon Stafford Beer, too. If not, check out this comment of mine on a different post
I wans't referring to Medium's reward structure. I think the blockchain based reward structure is superior. I was referring to Medium's algorithm that somehow seems to bring up valuable content for readers to read.
In Steemit we have the crude system of tags and the "trending" and "hot" and "promoted" pages that are basically useless. That's what needs improving