A bit cheeky to offer up an algo approach and not a single piece of criteria Kevin! 😁

I can't help but think cynically, if the code is there to be viewed, the scammers and smart-asses will be there to exploit it.

As time progresses, the closer I feel we are to the end of our Steemy experiment, and the more hope I place on SMT and account based voting to increase the value of our Steem Power investments.

I feel something has to give in mindset if things are to improve for the whole here, and when I read the arguments laid out against doing so, the less I feel that is likely to happen.

Steem on til the end!

That's an interesting idea. But I think that there are too many opponents of such a system. There is a bot here that looks for quality content and recommends it to the rest of the community. It's @trufflepig.

Perhaps i may need to come back to re-read, re-think and then re-phrase what i'll say in a later time..

Maybe we can learn from the mainstream social media in that how does their upvote/like economy works.. When karma isnt worth anything, how is it circulated among the redditors and what will their criteria of giving out upvotes and downvotes be. Conversely, when we look at steem, knowing that our votes have a monetary value tied behind it, how have we performed in terms of setting our criteria to upvote/downvote.

there's no money behind the likes, upvotes and claps on other platforms. So why are they worth so much and why do people flock there? I guess we might agree it's mainly due to the network effect, driven by content people find addictive and worth their time and attention.

It's not that these content creators on other platforms arent in it for the money too? they pretty much have the same mindset as most of the non-whales that are here - to create value (ergo make money). 

But is there any other value besides money? It's hard to buy a Network Effect but its something that determines whether an internet platform thrives or dies.. 

Does Steem have a semblance of the Network Effect? is it a priority on the platform and among it's developers and users?

I know this discussion is about the best way to distribute the steem tokens among the users but really it got me into thinking will too much change in the blockchain cause good or harm? is the original White Paper written as a base for experimentation for improvement or a codex to be abide by? 

and is changing token distribution addressing the root cause, if there is even a root cause..

please dont take this as me pouring water on your train of thought, in fact inspired me to go on another tangent.

Ultimately, what does the Steem Blockchain aim to do to improve the human experience? what will be it's function when it became a part of the mainstream zeitgest? What can people find on the apps of the steem blockchain that people cant find anywhere else.. and im talking about the selfie-ing, console-gaming, wage-earning, dutiful-voting, barely tech-literate majority of the human race. 

To be honest some of this stuff really is beyond me. But i think there needs to be a site-wide understanding of what the Steem Blockchain can and will potentially be and not just the "crypto-atm machine" that so many users are sadly taking advantage of currently.

or maybe im just rambling, and i apologise for that.

what you think I see is not viable, everyone would have a piece of cake and not many people are hidden with a quality post.

also imagine the algorithm monsterhood that would be with the number of users there?

Just imagine that and happening bots will take over

Sounds a bit socialistic and egalitaristic to me :). The upcoming changes to voting that Ned talked about sound like they will fix the current issue.

The problem is that steemit is immune till now to external adds.
But internal adds are growing promising the solution for Steemit as a nickel machine, that gives the key to the reward pool without the main vision of steemit. 
Quality content is not the key to rewards for some part of the people, as it was in the initial days.
But only the community can fix this with collective consensual ways to stop the commercial vision on Steemit.
We don't want the honeypot of steemit to feed the ones that do not contribute with their pollen.
The **Western honeybee** is normally robbed by the  **Italian bee**.
Let's stop the Mob of **Italian Bees** that don't bring honey content.

I hate have conspiracy theories  but I love this one

Quite a logical suggestion. But will be difficult to implement because there is won't be any tangible basis for relative comparison of individual contributions. I mean, how can my work be assessed when I am just a noob?

@eurogee of @euronation community

wow very excellent post Thanks for sharing i will done upvote..

Hi @kevinwong
Regard from indonesia

This is an interesting idea which I think would quickly be adopted by low(er) quality blog network owners, those who mostly hire via Craigslist in third world/development nations and tend to pay less than USD 1/post.

Unless this would become a capped max. earning/timespan in which every contributor who hits the cap would mostly continue just for sh*t and giggles, and because the community is awesome, this would absolutely serve the speed posters. Although, of course, the beauty with algos is that anything can be capped.

Did you just touch upon the _communist blockchain model_, @kevinwong?

I really think that will remove too much of the "human" side of the project. I do not know if that is a good thing. 

I mean, I get the system will always have some limits, and people will always find a way to game it. But with an automatic distribution, I think it would feel like a "man against machine" activity.

But again, I see some very good points about it. A system like that would reward the **social** aspect of the platform, more than the **quality** aspect of it. Since the social activity is much more easy to adequate to numbers and analysis, the distribution would be fair. A distribution based on the notion of quality will always have problems, because quality, in this case, is subjective.

You gave me some very good food for thought. @ned was talking the other day about changing the system already. I think that is a very good sign.

Let's hope for the best.

Firstly @kevinwong, I would like to thank you for your recent up-vote, it definitely lifts the spirits of the creator when a whale passes by.  I've added myself to your following and I think that this idea is really, really good.  You make perfect sense with the evolution of a system like this, which can always be modified according to the steering community.  In fact, if this would be implemented onto the Steemit platform, more people would accept this as a fair system, and not down to favouritism, etc.  Excellent idea and I am watching attentively to see what happens down the road.  Great post! Resteemed!

All these suggestions of late and more is what SMTs will experiment on and each tokenizer, on its own, will try to solve this wealth distribution problem how he or she sees fit. 

Steemit will just tag along whoever gets it right. 


As for the technology stack to distribute them rewards without them Whales determining what goes where, I'm guessing Tau?

And for the judiciary system to choke off spammers, Behest.io?

In all, it is experiment upon experiment till we get it right. 

They should roll out more labs already.

Well it's going to change the system quite totally that is, it may just be becoming a centralized system where power and reward are shared equally, however with some perks and rules added to it.

However I must say,  they're are going to be so much affected in the area of voting power and curation reward, but if the system decides to do the rewarding  then the multiple posters of like ten to twelve times a day will have to be curtailed and if they're are, then it's a start and a win for me.

i think this is a good idea.

You changed the whole system of steemit..i don't know how your idea will work but steemit/steem need improvement in wealth distribution. The idea of increasing curation percentage form 25 to 50 is really good for this platform. I want to know.. what is views on bid bots ...are they killing the system??

If it became automated and equal, what benefit would a user get to hold Steem.  Their vote would not matter, viewer/participation for a HODLer would decrease.  The holdings would give no benefit above other projects, so there would be a wish as many would transfer to other options.

This sounds like an idea that might be better applied to a brand new cryptocurrency project. I think it is too different to how steem works to ever be implemented, though it is an interesting idea.  :) 

A nice idea, but I can't see it ever working. There are too many groups with very different requirements & [perceived] statuses for any one algorithm to be voted in by a community - even if it was one user, one vote.

The majority of whales would never voluntarily give up the system which sees them lose their power/wealth.

The spammers want a system they can manipulate to get exposure for their agenda, and ultimately make money from (these could be new users, or established).

The silent majority wouldn't bother voting.

The newest members can barely understand the platform as it is. I'm sure that any algorithm would further complicate an already complicated system, so would further alienate them.

What is obvious is that the method for distribution of wealth on Steem needs looking at - something I believe Steem Inc are doing.

But you can't put something like that in the hands of the community. Whether it's blockchain, or offline, the rich will never vote to give their money to the poor. Those with good intentions would be outvoted by the majority with self-interest at heart - it's just human nature.

The concept and thought is not bad, it will require a bot to make things like that happen. The shortcoming is that bot cannot handle everything professionally. Steemit might lter end up been a dumping site, where a lot of people will just write their post and go, i dea of steemit been a social platform may end up been the reverse. 
The only thing i think can be done is what ned say in last video interview, is the implementation of **oracle**, well the whales on steemit might not really take it serious. Since they are indpendent, among other things that can be done is building a large community with people of like minded individual, giving them guide on how to bring new people. With this step taken into place, we have a strong steemit platfor.
Cheers!

@kevinwong Good system is going to be completely changed, it is a central system where power and reward can be shared equally, but some features and additions have been added. If the system decides to reward, the poster will be poster repeatedly repeated in the poster And if they are.
![DQmbfCLe2xuqAM33yaostvy57ZyLWYjX2YiuWsPaX8sttdR_640x480.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmP1wiBESDs4wj5P9qWZ5cZVkXvVwyLT5gBm6V6KQtkJyR/DQmbfCLe2xuqAM33yaostvy57ZyLWYjX2YiuWsPaX8sttdR_640x480.png)

I honestly wish automating steem's distribution would be in operation. It's unfortunate that that is too difficult to happen. But it would create a fair system that each user on the platform will have a reason to be involved in any kind of activity on steemit knowing very well he's guaranteed of some rewards.