 I know this topic has already been discussed at length in the past couple weeks but I want to revive the debate as **I firmly believe that eliminating curation rewards is essential** for steem to move forward. Let's see how these curation rewards negatively impact the platform. ### Curation rewards create a lot of complexity and confusion for new users These are the kind of questions newbies ask themselves: Why do all the votes on my post come up at the 30 min mark ? How can my post have 4 views and 70 votes? Why do most comments have no rewards? ### Curation rewards only benefit a small numbers of users The vast majority of curation rewards are earned by a tiny minority. These rewards are also based on a specific algorithm. The algorithm defines the rules of the game. Most users have no idea how the rules work and the average joe won't care enough to learn them. ### Curation reward discourage whales to spread their upvotes Because of the reward curve whales are encouraged to vote at 100% weight to earn the max curation rewards, so posts either gets a few pennies or tens of dollars. ### Curation rewards creates centralization pressure Guilds were meant to spread the rewards around but because of curation rewards they ended up doing the opposite. Guilds owner are encouraged to not spread their vote because if they do they will lose out on curation rewards. ### Curation rewards have turned the site into a fake system run by bots and driven by money No businesses is going to touch steem in its current form. ### Curation rewards have forced users to change their voting behaviors Recently I noticed something very telling is that everyone was voting at 1% on my posts. So I looked into it further and concluded that these were not bots, they were real individuals voting because vote were all made at seperate times. I'll be the first to admit that I often vote at 1% especially on comments. These are the signs of a broken system. The argument for keeping curation rewards is that investors won't have any incentives to buy steem power if we remove them. This **assumption is incorrect**, it is based on the idea that investors care about growing the number of their steem more than growing the value of steem. There is a very vocal minority in this community who are very **self centered** and believe that growing the number of steem in their wallet is the end goal. It was the same group of people that were bragging about HF16 because they wouldn't receive their inflation anymore. These individuals don't seem to understand that 1 000 000 steem is worth as much as 1 steem when the price is zero. Another argument for keeping them is that steemit's model is based on rewarding people who contribute to the platform and curating is a form of contribution. I don't disagree with this however **curating doesn't solve a real world problem, good content naturally rises to the top.** To me the major innovation of steem is that it creates **a new model** that rewards content creator without directly relying on advertisement. There are also a few individuals that have been very vocal against removing these rewards, these people so happens to be among the small minority that benefits a lot from curation rewards. There is definetely a conflict of interest going on there. If we want steem to reach its **full potential**we will have to get past this and think how something can benefit the platform as a whole, not just a few persons. Here is a quote from @denmarkguy which describes perfectly the current situation >Steemit is reaching that tricky stage where early adopters become resistant to change in service of "protecting their existing benefits" while also being aware that continued growth depends on making changes in such ways that the community becomes attractive to newcomers. **The value of the platform will be a lot higher in the eyes of investors if curation rewards are removed**, no more bots, quality content, fairer distribution, less greed mentality, more appealing for other website to integrate, more comment voting, less confusing for newbies, more engagement,etc..all of these will make the platform a lot more valuable than it is now. Eliminating curation reward will also **improve** one major issue which is **power concentration.** Without curation rewards whales will be upvoting a lot less and will spread their vote a lot more which is essential for retention.They will also be a lot more likely to delegate their voting power because doing so will be a win win, they won't lose out on curation anymore and will finally be able to focus on growing the value of steem. It will also **increase engagement** a lot because active users will have a lot more stake to vote with since bots won't be voting anymore. Votes will be a lot more meaningfull and users's reputation will be on the line when they vote for something. The **comment pool** will be totally unnecessary, if curation rewards are eliminated comments will be rewarded a LOT more. I have been very vocal about this comment pool because i think it is a terrible idea, it is not KISS at all and do not solve the underlying issue. I thought it was pretty bad without curation rewards but now they want to make it with curation rewards, this is even worse basically it will replicate the exact same broken system in the comment section, you will see comments worth $30 and other comments worth a few pennies, you will see whales downvote a lot and people whining even more, all this pool is going to achieve is **increase infighting** and **unfair** sentiment within the community. Eliminating curation rewards is a much cleaner and elegant way to deal with this problem. Here is an interesting read from @timcliff about eliminating curation rewards https://steemit.com/curation/@timcliff/elimination-of-curation-rewards You can go check it out, I am going to address here only the arguments for keeping them _Curation rewards are currently one of the only reasons to power up / remain powered up._ From the perspective of growing your steem it is a good reason, however the **goal should be to grow the value of steem.** If the platform becomes **more valuable**, more businesses will be interested and investors will come. With curation you are targeting a very small group of investors. The majority of investors are not interested about setting up bots or curating a few hours a day, **they want passive income.** _There are a huge amount of users that are actively involved in the platform through curation activities (developing bots, curation trails, guilds, manual curation, etc.)._ Users involved in these activities are **wasting their time** because they are not adding **real value** to the platform. Bots are actually undermining the credibility of the whole site and guilds are increasing centralization. Imagine if all these users were working on productive things to **increase the value of steem.** _Curation rewards provides a financial incentive for users to spend a very significant amount of their time discovering good content._ This is completely **unnecessary,** users will upvote good content regardless of the incentives. Also due to curation rewards 'good content' as turned into 'content with high payouts' so you end up having people voting for garbage content just so they can pocket a lot of curation rewards. _The goal of the platform is to reward users for their contributions for the platform, and curating is a form of contributing.Lots of users find earning curation rewards fun._ The majority of users earn **very very little from curation rewards**. There are only a **tiny minority** who makes decent amount from curation. I don't think many users find it fun because almost everyone is subscribed to bots. And many don't have a clue about the voting algorithm. I am convinced that eliminating curation rewards will be a **big positive for steem**, I am myself earning a lot of these rewards every week but i can see the bigger picture and want to grow the **value of steem**. I know there is a lot of support in the community for eliminating them, Dan the creator of steem himself is in favor so let's do this guys!! https://s15.postimg.org/sag7ibpuz/Screen_Shot_2017_03_04_at_23_46_09.png
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem","steemit","busy"],"users":["denmarkguy","timcliff"],"image":["https://steemitimages.com/DQmRBvfJ1J7jWhaft5yuzQMfaLbQscZ15f8rhySp8854Hwn/sfondo_ipad_mini_retina_display_117.jpeg","https://s15.postimg.org/sag7ibpuz/Screen_Shot_2017_03_04_at_23_46_09.png"],"links":["https://steemit.com/curation/@timcliff/elimination-of-curation-rewards"],"app":"steemit/0.1","format":"markdown"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:05:15 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:05:15 |
depth | 0 |
children | 234 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 5.370 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.009 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 1.045 HBD |
body_length | 8,462 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 0 |
post_id | 2,646,525 |
net_rshares | 31,340,523,271,791 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
badassmother | 0 | 101,151,992,565 | 75% | ||
abit | 0 | 623,290,191,396 | 1% | ||
wang | 0 | 153,494,121,619 | 1% | ||
clayop | 0 | 712,533,211,103 | 100% | ||
aizensou | 0 | 610,982,347,636 | 100% | ||
benjojo | 0 | 1,358,488,292,844 | 100% | ||
pairmike | 0 | 3,731,892,195 | 1% | ||
pheonike | 0 | 37,992,836,435 | 20% | ||
proctologic | 0 | 4,260,225,087 | 1% | ||
abcd | 0 | 102,356,971 | 1% | ||
donkeypong | 0 | 2,979,882,326,090 | 100% | ||
konelectric | 0 | 711,695,223 | 1% | ||
team | 0 | 157,158,380,213 | 100% | ||
chitty | 0 | 345,540,765,620 | 100% | ||
valtr | 0 | 4,417,520,008 | 25% | ||
carlos-cabeza | 0 | 19,414,326,586 | 100% | ||
bryner | 0 | 8,799,607,970 | 100% | ||
forrestwillie | 0 | 647,077,407 | 1% | ||
teamsteem | 0 | 383,562,661,429 | 100% | ||
vividrange | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
klye | 0 | 144,698,824,760 | 100% | ||
stellabelle | 0 | 1,804,455,907,375 | 100% | ||
andrei | 0 | 245,589,974 | 1% | ||
kaylinart | 0 | 615,078,932,913 | 100% | ||
everythink | 0 | 44,179,244,933 | 100% | ||
proglobyte | 0 | 1,046,049,817 | 20% | ||
crok | 0 | 5,105,184,201 | 100% | ||
mammasitta | 0 | 19,366,701,318 | 100% | ||
fyrstikken | 0 | 52,397,048,517 | 1% | ||
wisehammer | 0 | 1,526,736,166 | 100% | ||
pmartynov | 0 | 183,640,468,292 | 100% | ||
grey580 | 0 | 374,241,264 | 1% | ||
michaellamden68 | 0 | 5,913,410,689 | 100% | ||
artem-sokoloff | 0 | 10,422,683,869 | 100% | ||
good-karma | 0 | 35,081,119,178 | 10% | ||
roelandp | 0 | 35,223,821,476 | 1% | ||
bartcant | 0 | 990,953,449 | 100% | ||
slowwalker | 0 | 1,356,387,568,474 | 100% | ||
knircky | 0 | 484,284,579,914 | 100% | ||
jamesjarman | 0 | 1,704,301,834 | 1% | ||
transisto | 0 | 11,084,110,078,984 | 100% | ||
karenmckersie | 0 | 66,495,448,399 | 100% | ||
luisucv34 | 0 | 21,406,390,141 | 100% | ||
rouketas | 0 | 50,428,693 | 100% | ||
blueorgy | 0 | 158,850,695,202 | 100% | ||
benjiberigan | 0 | 11,638,256,843 | 100% | ||
coininstant | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||
ubg | 0 | 588,552,280 | 2% | ||
bones | 0 | 4,186,758,679 | 100% | ||
beowulfoflegend | 0 | 54,331,921,474 | 100% | ||
deanliu | 0 | 65,290,926,767 | 100% | ||
btc-dialog | 0 | 128,216,680 | 100% | ||
sokoloffa | 0 | 22,711,953,664 | 100% | ||
tommyhansen | 0 | 75,204,765,854 | 100% | ||
fabien | 0 | 733,241,483,802 | 100% | ||
alexpmorris | 0 | 12,097,068,959 | 100% | ||
dirty.hera | 0 | 190,826,314 | 100% | ||
proglobyte-m1 | 0 | 1,057,739,129 | 20% | ||
merej99 | 0 | 75,031,727,794 | 100% | ||
tingaling | 0 | 1,043,373,234 | 20% | ||
timcliff | 0 | 188,750,654,092 | 100% | ||
sunshine | 0 | 117,526,319,546 | 100% | ||
timelapse | 0 | 462,924,326 | 1% | ||
achim86 | 0 | 23,661,400,817 | 100% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 1,098,824,816,657 | 100% | ||
kurtbeil | 0 | 30,072,526,117 | 20% | ||
ekitcho | 0 | 735,923,201,406 | 100% | ||
darthnava | 0 | 400,719,171 | 1% | ||
cryptos | 0 | 76,043,842,315 | 40% | ||
bryan-imhoff | 0 | 43,054,091,829 | 100% | ||
lightsplasher | 0 | 80,232,914,052 | 100% | ||
zentat | 0 | 1,095,446,893 | 20% | ||
virtualgrowth | 0 | 16,278,699,998 | 100% | ||
lemouth | 0 | 68,107,430,565 | 100% | ||
lamech-m | 0 | 4,845,257,536 | 100% | ||
mindfreak | 0 | 55,159,377,856 | 100% | ||
the-bitcoin-dood | 0 | 3,237,786,738 | 100% | ||
madoff | 0 | 2,076,440,625 | 100% | ||
therealpaul | 0 | 70,701,178,071 | 100% | ||
steembriefing | 0 | 1,054,061,814 | 20% | ||
barrydutton | 0 | 1,376,554,385 | 1% | ||
krnel | 0 | 893,269,630,392 | 100% | ||
jlufer | 0 | 11,519,506,288 | 100% | ||
carrinm | 0 | 173,910,799,433 | 100% | ||
steemitguide | 0 | 586,190,243 | 1% | ||
richardcrill | 0 | 1,443,336,314 | 1% | ||
titusfrost | 0 | 32,779,783,084 | 100% | ||
triplep | 0 | 1,269,127,761 | 100% | ||
jacobtothe | 0 | 30,302,996,760 | 100% | ||
ender | 0 | 574,726,872 | 100% | ||
jacobts | 0 | 229,388,994 | 1% | ||
mindhunter | 0 | 34,136,975,035 | 100% | ||
renzoarg | 0 | 39,454,481,062 | 100% | ||
patelincho | 0 | 108,344,571 | 1% | ||
bitcoinparadise | 0 | 30,401,304,953 | 100% | ||
whatsup | 0 | 39,328,785,928 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 34,453,218,690 | 100% | ||
thegame | 0 | 520,074,331 | 10% | ||
okean123 | 0 | 941,932,319 | 10% | ||
donchate | 0 | 7,895,095,540 | 100% | ||
surpassinggoogle | 0 | 12,584,916,265 | 100% | ||
steembets | 0 | 528,148,887 | 10% | ||
steemint | 0 | 1,046,475,464 | 20% | ||
rose98734 | 0 | 742,579,126 | 100% | ||
kiks14 | 0 | 179,365,060 | 100% | ||
freiheit50 | 0 | 30,593,081,517 | 100% | ||
spark | 0 | 4,367,682,803 | 100% | ||
created | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||
anagamidev | 0 | 306,645,993,613 | 100% | ||
giantbear | 0 | 1,255,915,120 | 1% | ||
stray | 0 | 426,015,423 | 1% | ||
paper-pecado | 0 | 19,026,294,623 | 100% | ||
daisyd | 0 | 284,397,868 | 1% | ||
steemland.com | 0 | 528,194,372 | 10% | ||
adelja | 0 | 9,855,575,831 | 100% | ||
sqube | 0 | 2,971,488,819 | 1% | ||
whatageek | 0 | 780,998,089 | 1% | ||
bring | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
j3dy | 0 | 2,303,502,315 | 100% | ||
breezin | 0 | 2,992,675,121 | 100% | ||
steemprentice | 0 | 14,847,055,372 | 30% | ||
collabornation | 0 | 1,120,313,700 | 100% | ||
ourlifestory | 0 | 40,295,028,135 | 100% | ||
humanearl | 0 | 141,692,915,209 | 100% | ||
lovemetouchme2 | 0 | 4,573,463,812 | 100% | ||
meysam | 0 | 538,017,297 | 1% | ||
kyra-kristian | 0 | 88,623,635 | 100% | ||
madlenfox | 0 | 2,587,311,360 | 100% | ||
leongkhan | 0 | 18,351,647,081 | 100% | ||
jphenderson | 0 | 417,995,449 | 30% | ||
colin-porter | 0 | 722,990,639 | 100% | ||
tamersameeh | 0 | 562,995,478 | 100% | ||
pitterpatter | 0 | 4,698,327,912 | 100% | ||
fibra59 | 0 | 12,561,363,536 | 100% | ||
johnthehoan | 0 | 303,555,244 | 1% | ||
mathworksheets | 0 | 8,193,369,601 | 100% | ||
tyroan | 0 | 1,152,701,926 | 100% | ||
personz | 0 | 26,075,799,493 | 100% | ||
jmetroya | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||
michaeladamparis | 0 | 16,876,310,234 | 100% | ||
edje | 0 | 13,823,432,025 | 100% | ||
someonewhoisme | 0 | 1,041,113,266,174 | 100% | ||
benjaminpm96 | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||
driptorchpress | 0 | 86,554,500 | 1% | ||
barvon | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
noagenda | 0 | 821,554,031,363 | 100% | ||
zulfahmiaulia | 0 | 752,414,888 | 100% | ||
nik69 | 0 | 79,819,702 | 100% | ||
ijavee | 0 | 2,538,063,863 | 100% | ||
playfulfoodie | 0 | 9,910,285,475 | 100% | ||
free2play | 0 | 440,634,531 | 20% | ||
fisteganos | 0 | 3,822,736,513 | 40% | ||
thedeplorable1 | 0 | 553,770,543 | 1% | ||
franserra1 | 0 | 1,924,948,226 | 100% | ||
tonylondon | 0 | 900,174,897 | 100% | ||
borepstein | 0 | 3,392,304,730 | 100% | ||
len.george | 0 | 3,980,862,504 | 100% | ||
paolobeneforti | 0 | 19,426,740,670 | 100% | ||
theghost1980 | 0 | 6,749,218,819 | 86% | ||
honusurf | 0 | 13,323,892,597 | 100% | ||
maximdraws | 0 | 13,876,090,470 | 100% | ||
denmarkguy | 0 | 404,125,631 | 1% | ||
naiahyoung | 0 | 12,177,358,606 | 100% | ||
smarch | 0 | 600,917,223 | 100% | ||
mestyz | 0 | 151,882,866 | 100% | ||
syibran | 0 | 1,839,813,541 | 100% | ||
radiv | 0 | 1,570,211,346 | 100% | ||
filotasriza3 | 0 | 5,830,308,198 | 100% | ||
pipes | 0 | 335,507,552 | 100% | ||
mampeli | 0 | 300,701,023 | 100% | ||
justinashby | 0 | 2,709,551,911 | 100% | ||
bnoise | 0 | 376,226,358 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 50,323,566 | 100% | ||
ducky9605 | 0 | 376,069,466 | 100% | ||
clint-ftz | 0 | 391,594,052 | 1% | ||
kamidela | 0 | 51,025,493 | 100% | ||
evildeathcore | 0 | 378,657,734 | 100% | ||
evimeria | 0 | 140,271,633 | 100% | ||
marjuki95 | 0 | 66,941,251 | 100% | ||
sixexgames | 0 | 952,097,694 | 100% | ||
kzollove | 0 | 3,168,055,597 | 100% | ||
bhikkhu | 0 | 2,080,179,721 | 100% | ||
lagisnotgood | 0 | 313,367,458 | 100% | ||
robvanvarenberg | 0 | 1,252,749,472 | 100% | ||
libertyweekly | 0 | 1,225,038,949 | 100% | ||
iamjide91 | 0 | 364,270,197 | 100% | ||
kidink23 | 0 | 327,834,806 | 100% | ||
travelnepal | 0 | 364,259,253 | 100% | ||
yulia.zhuykova | 0 | 356,964,768 | 100% | ||
bookman | 0 | 2,262,186,677 | 100% | ||
fannyamor | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
inna-yatsuk | 0 | 276,468,178 | 100% | ||
zuhranasra | 0 | 455,900,679 | 100% | ||
businesswri | 0 | 112,997,125 | 100% | ||
apidkizza | 0 | 283,932,767 | 100% | ||
andrianna | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
bibek | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
shyamal | 0 | 0 | 100% | ||
kaiching77 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
Well i was looking down the list of your posts and thought this one was suitable. First of all, an apology for any 'bad-mouthing' you may have seen from myself. I received this comment on this post that made me think i'd been too harsh - although I have tried my best to keep to data and facts. https://steemit.com/steemit/@diabolika/how-to-live-off-poor-steemians-and-help-the-rich-get-richer-full-guide-and-128526#@valued-customer/re-abh12345-re-valued-customer-re-abh12345-re-diabolika-how-to-live-off-poor-steemians-and-help-the-rich-get-richer-full-guide-and-128526-20171113t184713258z Ok, now that's out of the way. Business. If the recent delegation project you've undertaken isn't proving suitable for you, would you consider an experiment... Basically, you delegate me your SP, you take my curation rewards. I'm thinking with your SP, I'd be aiming for 280 SP a week. This is a rough estimate, based on the price of Steem at .85$ As you may (or may not have read) I'd like to throw most of this at the newer accounts, try and spot the potential longer termers. However, this may not be most profitable so i'll need to balance it out to make the rewards up. I'm on discord/steemit.chat if you want to discuss further details. Or you can just say, not interested! Cheers
author | abh12345 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20171113t221646740z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/steemit/@diabolika/how-to-live-off-poor-steemians-and-help-the-rich-get-richer-full-guide-and-128526#@valued-customer/re-abh12345-re-valued-customer-re-abh12345-re-diabolika-how-to-live-off-poor-steemians-and-help-the-rich-get-richer-full-guide-and-128526-20171113t184713258z"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-11-13 22:16:45 |
last_update | 2017-11-13 22:16:45 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-11-20 22:16:45 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,291 |
author_reputation | 1,408,615,966,842,648 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 20,297,131 |
net_rshares | 299,946,457 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
spiry-btc | 0 | 299,946,457 | 5% |
Here's what I haven't figured out yet: If you and other users are so adamantly against voting incentives/rewards, then why aren't you declining payout on your posts? Surely, you don't want to be contributing to the greed of voters who will earn ~12% of the total rewards allocated to your posts, right? And if the argument continues to be that voting is done on other platforms without voting rewards, then let's also get rid of posting rewards - since posting on the most popular social media sites occurs millions and millions of times per day without rewards for doing so. Let's remain consistent here, shall we? And if we're going to remain consistent and be opposed to rewards, why are we here? Why don't we have @dan rewrite the code and make this a free platform like all the others? I suppose Steemit would then just have to attract a larger user base with only its fantastic UI functions and design. Has the "revolution" already ended? Did I miss it?
author | ats-david |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t005107523z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["dan"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 00:51:06 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:51:06 |
depth | 1 |
children | 20 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.081 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.359 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 963 |
author_reputation | 324,017,334,201,433 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,755 |
net_rshares | 28,126,893,453,630 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 28,051,212,624,752 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,070,746,598 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 518,971,105 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,037,260,791 | 100% | ||
cmp2020 | 0 | 54,947,239,454 | 100% | ||
budgetbucketlist | 0 | 2,106,610,930 | 5% |
lol
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t014524566z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:46:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:46:12 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 3 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,073 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Lol, I'm crying
author | cmp2020 |
---|---|
permlink | re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t012046632z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:20:54 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:20:54 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 15 |
author_reputation | 65,599,003,109,574 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,946 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Many debating tricks and very little reasoning in what you write here, and I suspect you know that. Very un-gentlemanlike, I'm used to better from you.
author | ocrdu |
---|---|
permlink | re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t144409605z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 14:44:15 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 14:44:15 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 151 |
author_reputation | 140,931,335,327,250 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,657,715 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>Very un-gentlemanlike... That's impossible. My profile specifically states that I am indeed a gentleman.
author | ats-david |
---|---|
permlink | re-ocrdu-re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t153059844z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 15:31:00 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 15:31:00 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 106 |
author_reputation | 324,017,334,201,433 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,658,001 |
net_rshares | 4,134,419,337 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ocrdu | 0 | 4,134,419,337 | 10% |
>Surely, you don't want to be contributing to the greed of voters who will earn ~12% of the total rewards allocated to your posts, right? To be honest I don't care about the money from post, I never think about this when I post, i think of the comment response. If you look at my history you will see that I hardly ever post compared to people who posts everyday. Also you fail to understand that I am not against curators personally, I didn't create this posts because I wanted to eliminate their gains. I created this post to improve the system and increase the value of steem. >And if the argument continues to be that voting is done on other platforms without voting rewards, then let's also get rid of posting rewards - since posting on the most popular social media sites occurs millions and millions of times per day without rewards for doing so. Let's remain consistent here, shall we? This is not the argument actually. This is a response to a stupid argument which is that people will stop voting if curation rewards are eliminated. >then let's also get rid of posting rewards - Posting rewards do not harm the system in any way, they actually bring value to the site unlike curation rewards. Your argument would be valid only if posts had the same bad incentives that curation rewards have which is not the case. >And if we're going to remain consistent and be opposed to rewards, why are we here? There is only a tiny amount of people who actually make any significant money from curation. Curations rewards are not the same has authors rewards, please don't take things out of context.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t014935000z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:49:36 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:51:24 |
depth | 2 |
children | 10 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.273 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.091 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,610 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,084 |
net_rshares | 6,037,425,984,457 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
jaewoocho | 0 | 4,984,184,955,319 | 100% | ||
clayop | 0 | 681,015,292,903 | 100% | ||
aurel | 0 | 372,225,736,235 | 40% |
>Also you fail to understand that I am not against curators personally, I didn't create this posts because I wanted to eliminate their gains. I created this post to improve the system and increase the value of steem. Yes, and your plan to "increase the value of steem" is by eliminating the incentives for curators - to "eliminate their gains." >This is not the argument actually. This is a response to a stupid argument which is that people will stop voting if curation rewards are eliminated. No, that was a response to the notion that "rewards aren't necessary because people will vote anyway." You have argued this point repeatedly - that users don't need monetary incentives to vote for content. The exact same is true for people who post online and do it without monetary incentives. There is no difference at all in the two arguments. Since *this* system is based on incentives for both content creators and content consumers, because they both perform necessary tasks of creation and evaluation, the reward incentives are for both types of users. If you eliminate one or heavily favor one over the other, then the incentive structure becomes imbalanced and the results become skewed, as we have observed. >Posting rewards do not harm the system in any way, they actually bring value to the site unlike curation rewards. What is your proof that the existence of curation rewards "harms" the system? And why do you believe that posting rewards do not? And are you not aware of the spam, plagiarism, and sybil attempts to game the system? I don't see how you can simply say that one incentive is bad and the other is good when both *can* be gamed, both *are* gamed, and both were designed to achieve specific results for the platform. But for all of the gaming that occurs (and was known *would* occur), the incentive structure has been proven to work for both creation and curation. >Your argument would be valid only if posts had the same bad incentives that curation rewards have which is not the case. My argument is valid because people do post and do vote on other sites without monetary incentives. This is a fact. Let's not pretend that voting is done on other sites for free, therefore, we don't need to incentivize it. And let's not pretend that only voters are driven by the desire to earn. This isn't why curation is incentivized on Steemit. It's incentivized because this platform was created explicitly for the purposes of rewarding social media users for their social media activities. >There is only a tiny amount of people who actually make any significant money from curation. This is irrelevant. The average user isn't supposed to be making "significant money" from upvoting posts in the first place. And I would argue that the average user isn't supposed to be making "significant money" from posting either. But users do have the *opportunity* to earn *some* money from being active on the platform. This isn't a job and this isn't supposed to be a UBI. It's simply an onboarding mechanism for a cryptocurrency. That's one of very few things that this site actually does well, in my opinion. >Curations rewards are not the same has authors rewards, please don't take things out of context. Nothing was taken "out of context." I was simply applying the arguments to posting rewards.
author | ats-david |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t152601227z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 15:26:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 16:01:00 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 3,323 |
author_reputation | 324,017,334,201,433 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,657,971 |
net_rshares | 14,414,499,826 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
remlaps | 0 | 14,414,499,826 | 100% |
I want to add more. If one posts garbage, it can be downvoted and ones reputation will be harmed. There is both positive/negative feedback system on posting reward. However, there is no feedback on one's voting itself, and there is no costs from voting. Equating no curation reward with no posting reward does not make sense IMO, and I agree that badly designed (mis-aligned) incentives is the target here.
author | clayop |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t062102391z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 06:21:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 06:21:03 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 407 |
author_reputation | 270,845,899,918,618 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,081 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>Surely, you don't want to be contributing to the greed of voters who will earn ~12% This is the saddest part actually, people are fighting for crumbs and they want these crumbs so badly that they can't see the enormous value that would come from removing these crumbs.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t020857800z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 02:08:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 02:08:57 |
depth | 2 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 271 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,157 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>This is the saddest part actually... No, the saddest part is that the rewards are *only* 12% because they have been reduced from 50% to 25%, minus the reverse auction. This is the reason why you're seeing more automation for voting. It has to do with that whole *incentive* thing. When the rewards for spending time/energy on a specific task are reduced, you tend to get less of it or a lower quality, or both. Or you get automation, which can result in the same outcome.
author | ats-david |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-ats-david-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t152944530z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 15:29:45 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 15:29:45 |
depth | 3 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.411 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.470 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 473 |
author_reputation | 324,017,334,201,433 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,657,993 |
net_rshares | 29,319,444,289,622 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,301,319,528,368 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,173,382,279 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 536,879,149 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 14,414,499,826 | 100% |
Excellent....let's remove these unwholesome curation rewards! There is so much potential within the Steem economy, the curation rewards won't be missed in the end. If dan is in favour and clearly many others, let's get on with it...
author | benjojo |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t074613257z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 07:46:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 07:46:12 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 232 |
author_reputation | 120,749,050,383,122 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,057 |
net_rshares | 34,351,453,914 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
snowflake | 0 | 34,351,453,914 | 1% |
As one argued this thing 12 days ago in [this post](https://steemit.com/steem/@clayop/revisiting-curation-reward-hot-coffee-cold-coffee-and-lukewarm-coffee), I agree with you. Voting is using power on reward allocation, and it can give psychological satisfaction. Arguments saying "No incentives on voting leads no votes" is very narrow understanding of human behaviors from the perspectives of both economics and psychology. People are already voting without any incentives, and even paying for being influential (Some streaming services have this business model). For me, the only concern is reducing incentives to hold SP from the perspective of investors, since curation reward is now a way to to earn profits (which is totally wrongly aligned with the original goal of "curation"). Inactive reward can be one more option, or we can increase SP rewards. **Voting should not be free lunch**
author | clayop |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t030655406z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/steem/@clayop/revisiting-curation-reward-hot-coffee-cold-coffee-and-lukewarm-coffee"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:06:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:06:57 |
depth | 1 |
children | 13 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 896 |
author_reputation | 270,845,899,918,618 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,032 |
net_rshares | 0 |
> Arguments saying "No incentives on voting leads no votes" is very narrow understanding of human behaviors from the perspectives of both economics and psychology. In an extreme sense yes, but voter apathy is widely observed too.
author | smooth |
---|---|
permlink | re-clayop-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t071732700z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 07:17:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 07:17:33 |
depth | 2 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 230 |
author_reputation | 253,602,537,834,068 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,288 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Less vote is an obvious result, but voter apathy is not necessarily true. And kind of apathy seems rather good than wrongly incentivized votes.
author | clayop |
---|---|
permlink | re-smooth-re-clayop-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t081208713z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 08:12:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 08:12:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 143 |
author_reputation | 270,845,899,918,618 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,526 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>For me, the only concern is reducing incentives to hold SP from the perspective of investors, since curation reward is now a way to to earn profits (which is totally wrongly aligned with the original goal of "curation"). Inactive reward can be one more option, or we can increase SP rewards. The incentives to hold SP will not be reduced because eliminating curation rewards will make the platform a lot more valuable, it will improve power concentration a lot and would make it a lot more appealing for business to integrate because of this very reason. You say curation rewards is a way to make profit, can you tell me one single investors who earned profit from curation reward? There are none because the value of steem has only gone down. >Inactive reward can be one more option, or we can increase SP rewards. I think that inflation can be used to incentivize people to buy steem, I actually created a post about it. So yeah I think using a portion of the reward pool to distribute to stake holder is a good idea and I also liked the idea of only rewarding inactive users. I think steem power should be removed entirely, many in the community agree with this. It would be a lot less confusing for newbies to have 2 currencies instead of 3. Basically your voting power would be the steem in your wallet and users would be able to vote with steem that is at least 7 days old to prevent double voting.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-clayop-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t034247600z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:42:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:45:30 |
depth | 2 |
children | 10 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,412 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,221 |
net_rshares | 0 |
I intentionally used "make profit" to make it easier, but actually it's compensate loss from inflation. SP holders who don't curate are losing about 8% annually, but if they curate, it will decrease to around 4~6%. Meanwhile, STEEM holders are losing 9.5% a year, since they don't get 15% of inflation reward. Merely removing curation reward keeps the difference (15%) same, but if we change curation reward to inflation reward, the difference will become around 33%. Details can differ, but I think the core idea is the same, as I mentioned in my last sentence. Voting is not free lunch.
author | clayop |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-clayop-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t042830709z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 04:28:30 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 04:28:30 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.765 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.588 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 589 |
author_reputation | 270,845,899,918,618 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,404 |
net_rshares | 30,547,823,123,189 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 30,543,872,685,374 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,377,780,044 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 572,657,771 | 100% |
>I think steem power should be removed entirely, many in the community agree with this. this isn't a bad idea.... >I think that inflation can be used to incentivize people to buy steem, I actually created a post about it. This is lol-bad. Lets print money and give it away for free... that will increase its value. Spoiler alert -- it won't.
author | sigmajin |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-clayop-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t195410723z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:54:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:54:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 348 |
author_reputation | 35,847,511,233,614 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,691 |
net_rshares | 11,831,723,674 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
sigmajin | 0 | 11,831,723,674 | 100% |
I'm a musician, how 'bout while we're at it, we say "No more rewards for anything but music!"? Just because you don't use curation rewards to make an income doesn't mean other people don't. People are not going to vote here unless they're paid to do it. They can already do that on Facebook or Instagram, where the website (app) is actually aesthetically pleasing, and doesn't look like a fricken word document with a blue header (and a crappy editor). Eliminating curation rewards would send away not only curators, but also authors who are rational and realize that the platform can't sustain itself anymore and decide to get out while they can. I am deeply frightened that you people are bringing this back to the table. Read this when you get a chance: http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/
author | cmp2020 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t150051031z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 15:00:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 15:02:45 |
depth | 1 |
children | 12 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 806 |
author_reputation | 65,599,003,109,574 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,649,978 |
net_rshares | 15,636,628,558 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
remlaps | 0 | 15,636,628,558 | 100% |
> People are not going to vote here unless they're paid to do it. Opinion found in some economic theories, not fact. People are motivated by other things than money as well. And kindly stop referring to economics 1.01, it doesn't prove your point, and there are many economic theories to choose from, most of which are flawed. Also, it doesn't make you look knowledgable, it makes you look arrogant and condescending, and it is as close to an ad hominem as makes no difference.
author | ocrdu |
---|---|
permlink | re-cmp2020-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170307t001939045z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-07 00:19:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-07 01:14:48 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 479 |
author_reputation | 140,931,335,327,250 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,536 |
net_rshares | 55,298,965,001 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
cmp2020 | 0 | 54,995,345,646 | 100% | ||
johnthehoan | 0 | 303,619,355 | 100% |
>I'm a musician, how 'bout while we're at it, we say "No more rewards for anything but music!"? Just because you don't use curation rewards to make an income doesn't mean other people don't. It's not about who earns money on the platform, you need to get rid of this mindset of " how you are going to profit from steem" and instead think of how " to increase the value of the platform" Curation ( 80-90% of which is done by bots) bring absolutely no value to the platform, a post whether its music, art or photo will bring value to the platform. >People are not going to vote here unless they're paid to do it. They are not voting today already, 90% of votes is done by bots. >Eliminating curation rewards would send away not only curators, but also authors who are rational and realize that the platform can't sustain itself anymore and decide to get out while they can How eliminating curation rewards will send authors away from the site? Why would the platform be any less sustainable? I don't follow The platform will be a lot more sustainable, users will have more influence which will incentivize them to buy more steem power and the site will be a lot more valuable in the eyes of investors. Do you really expect businesses to integrate a content reward system run by 90% bots? It's not going to happen.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-cmp2020-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t193157500z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 19:31:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 19:31:57 |
depth | 2 |
children | 10 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,320 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,651,920 |
net_rshares | 0 |
> how you are going to profit from steem" and instead think of how " to increase the value of the platform" New users don't care about increasing the value of the platform. Like it or not, they're in it to make profit (as are most voters and authors) (I.E. you're being paid for this article therefore you are making profit) >They are not voting today already, 90% of votes is done by bots That means 90 percent of author rewards are also currently given out (diversified) by bots >How eliminating curation rewards will send authors away from the site? I and many others would leave >Why would the platform be any less sustainable? Because most of the voters that give the platform its value would leave. The loss of voters would cause demand for steem to leave, and the value of steem to plummet. >users will have more influence which will incentivize them to buy more steem power and the site will be a lot more valuable in the eyes of investors. No, it will alienate many people who are voting to get curation rewards (causing them to leave and leave only authors) and steemit to look unattractive to investors. >Do you really expect businesses to integrate a content reward system run by 90% bots? Yes, Google uses bots yet many businesses depend on their search engine. Again, I'd recommend you read this article: http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/ As well as this article: http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
author | cmp2020 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-cmp2020-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t194902567z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/","http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 19:49:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 19:49:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.595 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.523 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,468 |
author_reputation | 65,599,003,109,574 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,046 |
net_rshares | 29,940,445,996,828 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,920,979,151,758 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,275,423,073 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 554,762,216 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,636,659,781 | 100% |
> Curation ( 80-90% of which is done by bots You've repeated this figure many times in this thread but it is wrong. Only about 20-30% of _vote power_ comes from bots (vote count is meaningless in a stake-weighted system) and even that probably understates the human influence because a lot of that voting may be _performed_ by a bot but is _decided_ by a human primarily for influence and not profit-maximizing reasons (for example deciding on their favorite posters or types of posts they want to support, or in some cases as a delegated vote decided by another human).
author | smooth |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-cmp2020-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t065648900z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 06:56:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 06:56:48 |
depth | 3 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 571 |
author_reputation | 253,602,537,834,068 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,175 |
net_rshares | 0 |
[Nesting] No, I've invested something more valuable to me than money, my music (I spent months writing my symphony). I also invested money I earned that I had in bitcoin. I also kept the money I earned here on the platform ($800). I am a high school kid with no reliable income to invest. (Thanks for trying to make this personal).
author | cmp2020 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t011402661z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:14:06 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:32:09 |
depth | 1 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 331 |
author_reputation | 65,599,003,109,574 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,903 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Sorry if you took this personal I am not trying to say that not investing real money is bad, it's just an observation that I made. Real investors with big money don't care about earning 10% annum through curation, they want 10-100x.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-cmp2020-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t013139200z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:31:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:31:39 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 232 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,019 |
net_rshares | 0 |
What, if you eliminate curation rewards, then I am cashing out and moving on! Curation rewards are half the reason I am here, that would be a deal breaker! Had too remove my automated robotic vote on this post.
author | coininstant |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t174605885z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 17:46:06 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 17:46:06 |
depth | 1 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 212 |
author_reputation | 88,155,862,363,129 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,658,853 |
net_rshares | 58,120,551,393 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
coininstant | 0 | 44,019,410,259 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 14,101,141,134 | 100% |
I'm going to sound a little harsh here but at least I'm being honest and its nothing personal Steemit doesn't need people like you who do not engage in the community and only let their bots running to earn a few pennies per day. It needs users who actually engage, bring their friends to the site and interact with the platform the same way they would on any other social media site. You bring absolutely no value to the platform by just letting your bot blindly vote and not getting involved in the community.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-coininstant-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t190044800z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:00:45 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:01:03 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 510 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,278 |
net_rshares | 31,697,645,775 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ocrdu | 0 | 31,697,645,775 | 100% |
Upvoted for a great contribution to the discussion. I'm not sure I agree with eliminating curation rewards (there are pros and cons), but it should be part of the conversation.
author | donkeypong |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t031028009z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:10:36 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:10:36 |
depth | 1 |
children | 6 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 176 |
author_reputation | 431,667,636,679,304 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,045 |
net_rshares | 12,383,500,140 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
edje | 0 | 12,383,500,140 | 100% |
Can you give me the cons please because I honestly can't see any :P
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-donkeypong-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t034444200z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:44:45 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:44:45 |
depth | 2 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 67 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,236 |
net_rshares | 0 |
One may argue that curation trails will have no income to sustain. But I think curation guilds can have alternative way to compensate curators, e.g. writing a post.
author | clayop |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-donkeypong-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t051631550z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 05:16:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 05:16:33 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 164 |
author_reputation | 270,845,899,918,618 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,547 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Others have written on this. It's not my expertise. But I'd see the main cons (to eliminating curation rewards) as being: (1) A lack of incentive to keep the site organized and clean. I know you addressed this in your post, but I still feel it would be a risk to throw that away (until proven otherwise, maybe on a testnet first?). (2) Part of me believes this thing works much better when people have a variety of things to do, can have fun, and stay occupied. A larger comment reward pool will be huge, since not everyone wants to write long articles. I'd like to see the site design accommodate (and the community be able to accept) some shorter length content and alternative types of content as well (news, links, video, music, FAQs, etc.). But the idea of paying people to vote is very interesting. Voting is something a lot of people can do and it may attract users who are not as interested in posting or commenting. Could rep systems be tied into voting somehow, so that there still would be some incentive to curate the site, aside from a monetary one?
author | donkeypong |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-donkeypong-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t044310070z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 04:43:18 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 04:43:18 |
depth | 3 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.953 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.651 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,071 |
author_reputation | 431,667,636,679,304 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,445 |
net_rshares | 31,180,854,811,759 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 31,164,808,862,180 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,377,780,044 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 572,657,771 | 100% | ||
edje | 0 | 12,095,511,764 | 100% |
I'm new here and still studying and learning at the same time. Curation rewards also made me think that only whales can benifit the rewards, since I'm a neophyte to this site, somehow confusion about how to earn. My little contribution to the site made me feel unimportant. But if @snowflake can convince those people involved in the curation for the betterment of the community, I would appreciate it very much. Thank you for the enlightenment.
author | ducky9605 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t013348689z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["snowflake"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:33:54 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:33:54 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 446 |
author_reputation | 427,460,973,391 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,690 |
net_rshares | 376,226,358 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
bnoise | 0 | 376,226,358 | 100% |
You have certainly a good point! I'm now 2 months active on the platform and do notice that posting rewards are much more rewarding than curation rewards. I do curate; I vote for those posts I liked. But I may only vote 5 to 10 times a day on posts since I generally only vote for posts that I've read and like. I do vote on comments; When in a conversation I generally do vote for all the replies to show my appreciation. Interestingly, with all the bots in the network, I can create a 'shit' post, get 1 or 2 people voting 100% on it and 100 bots and I've earned more than days of voting. Although I'm advised to setup auto voting, I still have kind of an issue with auto voting; Auto voting does not help content/post quality at all; Also auto voting may increase my rewards through curation rewards, I think the total sum of rewards I can get by maximising auto voting is still very very small to author rewards. Most of the days my voting power stays way above 90%.
author | edje |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t013903595z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:39:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:45:45 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 973 |
author_reputation | 182,981,833,957,909 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,708 |
net_rshares | 12,095,511,764 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
edje | 0 | 12,095,511,764 | 100% |
If this proposal were to go through, then my question would be: **What value would there be in accumulating or buying STEEM Power?** If holding STEEM Power has no benefit then one would constantly be selling STEEM to convert it to a measure of value. The constant selling would drive the price of STEEM down which would further encourage one to sell STEEM as soon as they get it from a post or comment. I am trying to understand what the value of holding or accumulating STEEM would have if there was no benefit in holding it. What ever system is developed has to uphold a market for STEEM where people want to buy it because it has value. Thanks in advance for helping me understand, Mike
author | etcmike |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t030459764z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:04:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:04:57 |
depth | 1 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 696 |
author_reputation | 534,676,096,189,306 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,022 |
net_rshares | 106,889,499,803 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
aenor | 0 | 42,302,499,222 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,632,600,709 | 100% | ||
bryan-imhoff | 0 | 43,054,091,829 | 100% | ||
cardboard | 0 | 5,900,308,043 | 100% |
If curation rewards were eliminated, I'd favor a portion of that now freed up rewards pool to go to higher interest rewards on holding SP. This would give one reason. I think the ability to influence payouts and reward content you care about is a good incentive on its own. It will also become more self serving in a way as community features roll out. Voting activity i think will naturally become more insular. Most people will interact within a few communities of their interest. If a community as a whole has more SP among its members and is active and engaged, they all will earn a greater percentage of the rewards pool. When I vote up someone and thereby give them a few Steem power, the next time they upvote me, their vote is more valuable to me. It's not a planned collusion, just a natural organic behavior that creates mini economies within the broader network. I also recall an app someone built months ago, where you could look and see your top supporters on a post in terms of the payout value their votes contributed. Anyone remember this and have a link? Imagine Patreon and KickStarter type programs set up with Steem. Transferring Steem directly would be one method of funding, but clearly votes can fund projects as well. I think voting is genius because it is essentially a tipping system that doesn't feel like taking money out of your own pocket, though in a roundabout way you are. Rather than paying directly into funding campaigns, I could envision people buying and holding SP with the value of their votes being calculated in $ amount by an app such as the one described, which would determine supporter level. You could essentially power up and earn KickStarter and Patreon backer type rewards on a regular basis without ever touching your underlying principle investment. I'd also support communities having some kind of cost either for formation or upkeep that would require Steem to either be held as SP or burned like with promoted posts now. In short (too late!) I don't see curation as the killer reason to hold Steem and think the elimination of curation rewards could be viable.
author | bryan-imhoff |
---|---|
permlink | re-etcmike-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t071103579z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 07:11:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 07:11:03 |
depth | 2 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.994 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.664 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 2,117 |
author_reputation | 71,780,425,099,152 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,954 |
net_rshares | 31,318,238,519,909 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 31,164,806,853,512 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,377,780,044 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 572,657,771 | 100% | ||
etcmike | 0 | 149,481,228,582 | 50% |
>Voting activity i think will naturally become more insular That's a good point and I've said this before steem will have so many different kind of content that is completely irrelevant to most people that curating this content will make no sense. Why would people care about upvoting family picture of people they never heard of? This is why the concept of curating for money is flawed because it goes against the natural will of the people.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-bryan-imhoff-re-etcmike-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t195148900z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 19:51:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 19:52:06 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 443 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,061 |
net_rshares | 39,059,053,364 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
bryan-imhoff | 0 | 39,059,053,364 | 100% |
Steem power by definition is meant to give you power. Unfortunately 99% of people don't understand the purpose of steem power because only 0.2% can use this tool. The benefit of holding steem power is to increase your influence, it's like a game the more you have the more power you have. Eliminating curation rewards would make this game a lot clearer because it will give influence to those who are active. In terms of financial incentives steem is like any other crypto, if you believe in the project and think its value will increase then you accumulate some, as the price increase the amount of reward you will be able to allocate will also increase. >The constant selling would drive the price of STEEM down which would further encourage one to sell STEEM as soon as they get it from a post or comment. This is already happening because the system is broken, it was meant to be a system where steem power gives you influence but turned out to be a system where only 0.2% can play the game. This needs to be reversed asap to bring the value of steem back up and eliminating curation rewards is an easy way to do it.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-etcmike-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t032738800z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:27:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:27:39 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.015 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.005 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,124 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,150 |
net_rshares | 735,923,201,406 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ekitcho | 0 | 735,923,201,406 | 100% |
Influence on this platform has no value unless the platform succeeded already. Chicken and egg. >Eliminating curation rewards would make this game a lot clearer because it will give influence to those who are active. This is not necessarily true. Big players still have more influences even if curation rewards is killed. They're active: they're curating manually or with a bot or delegated to others.
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-etcmike-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t213340125z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 21:34:27 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 21:34:27 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 403 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,809 |
net_rshares | 0 |
100% agreed with that. May I translate you article to Russian network Golos? Resteemed and promoted. Here is my translated version of your article: https://golos.io/steem/@everythink/otmena-voznagrazhdenii-za-kuratorstvo-perevod-posta-snowflake Please give me a note if your don't like that I've published it on Golos that way.
author | everythink |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t103136629z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1","links":["https://golos.io/steem/@everythink/otmena-voznagrazhdenii-za-kuratorstvo-perevod-posta-snowflake"]} |
created | 2017-03-05 10:31:36 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 14:54:03 |
depth | 1 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 327 |
author_reputation | 4,677,402,812,046 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,634 |
net_rshares | 77,368,266,387 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
everythink | 0 | 43,017,942,531 | 100% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 34,350,323,856 | 1% |
>May I translate you article to Russian network Golos? Sure, no problem
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-everythink-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t191714700z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 19:17:15 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 19:17:15 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 72 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,651,844 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Wow, what a post I stumbled upon here. Great points. Obviously there are many businesses now using the curation reward system but also many new apps build on Steem like Dtube, Viewly, Steepshot, Zappl and now Mangosteem Chat. Also the price is way up to when this post was written. Regarding all that, __what are your thoughts on curation rewards now after half a year?__
author | flauwy |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170901t062101291z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-09-01 06:21:15 |
last_update | 2017-09-01 06:21:15 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-09-08 06:21:15 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 1.198 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.396 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 375 |
author_reputation | 296,259,911,900,510 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 13,521,700 |
net_rshares | 428,428,560,973 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
unipsycho | 0 | 14,369,733,306 | 100% | ||
thinkkniht | 0 | 414,058,827,667 | 100% |
@sigmajin has shown that mining curation awards with bots has not proven to be a problem. Removing curation awards takes away one of the only positives I see on the platform. Why would I care enough to curate if the payout is the same either way? I'd let my steemvoter run, but I would also stop spreading the love as much,...there wouldn't be a point in running my vote power down. Fix the curves and keep the rewards,...
author | freebornangel |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t021840493z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["sigmajin"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 02:18:42 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 02:20:45 |
depth | 1 |
children | 8 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 422 |
author_reputation | 171,005,551,503,977 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,195 |
net_rshares | 23,712,375,461 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
remlaps | 0 | 13,787,782,442 | 100% | ||
freebornangel | 0 | 9,163,538,675 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 761,054,344 | 100% |
>Why would I care enough to curate if the payout is the same either way? Maybe because you like what you read? And you want to rewards a fellow steemian?
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-freebornangel-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t023922200z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 02:39:21 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 02:39:21 |
depth | 2 |
children | 7 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 154 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,275 |
net_rshares | 41,622,238,794 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
freebornangel | 0 | 9,163,538,675 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 31,697,645,775 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 761,054,344 | 100% |
Yeah, I'd still vote, but the game wouldn't hold the same appeal. I recognize that your way could be given a chance. Hopefully the new curves will mitigate against negatives you list. I have noticed the lack of 0.0 payouts in cashout, so the top must have come down some. Maybe the whales are voting less? Trending is definitely lower. I think most of your qualms are corrected with a less extreme reward curve. Cutting curation rewards would be akin to chopping of an arm and a leg, they are 1/3 of the equation here, and major surgery. As a low reward content creator, no fault but my own, curation awards make being here a little more joyful as I can earn something, at least.
author | freebornangel |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-freebornangel-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t030529799z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 03:05:30 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 03:05:30 |
depth | 3 |
children | 6 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.408 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.469 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 684 |
author_reputation | 171,005,551,503,977 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,379 |
net_rshares | 29,307,421,746,350 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,303,711,465,564 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,173,401,637 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 536,879,149 | 100% |
Eliminating bots would be great, but without incentives, who would vote?
author | gduran |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t011928669z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:19:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:19:33 |
depth | 1 |
children | 27 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 72 |
author_reputation | 58,683,119,745,305 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,611 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Who gets more psychic income (by being influential) will vote, while for-profit bots obviously won't. Assuming an extreme case. If no one votes except one person with 100 SP. Now, 100 SP makes any changes on rewards, but in this case he/she can give a whole reward to a post/author by upvote. If the one were you, would you vote or not? That voting must be much more enjoyable than now, and will give more psychic income. I would say, he/she definitely will vote.
author | clayop |
---|---|
permlink | re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t031113245z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:11:15 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:11:15 |
depth | 2 |
children | 14 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 463 |
author_reputation | 270,845,899,918,618 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,048 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Nah, if there are a million posts on the platform but he/she can only give out one vote, perhaps he/she won't vote, for the fairness, or lack of resource to review all posts to find the best one.
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-clayop-re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t015000136z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:50:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:50:48 |
depth | 3 |
children | 7 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 195 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,094 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Boy you got me with psychic income, now I'm really lost. I really don't agree with you, but I am open minded, maybe you are right and I am mistaken, no problem.
author | gduran |
---|---|
permlink | re-clayop-re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t031649861z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 03:16:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 03:17:51 |
depth | 3 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 160 |
author_reputation | 58,683,119,745,305 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,083 |
net_rshares | 0 |
The less users are voting the more power is left for active voters. For example if you were the only person voting you would be able to allocate the whole reward pool yourself) Who would vote? Active users who want power and pretty much everyone who cares about the platform.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t012911500z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:29:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:30:54 |
depth | 2 |
children | 11 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.034 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.011 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 275 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,677 |
net_rshares | 1,404,385,664,024 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
benjojo | 0 | 1,358,488,292,844 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 31,697,712,797 | 100% | ||
edje | 0 | 13,823,432,025 | 100% | ||
bnoise | 0 | 376,226,358 | 100% |
I understand that even less, my voting power I believe isn't even $0.01 so what's the profit in that? To make any money an article has to be upvoted by people whose votes are worth something.
author | gduran |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t014609692z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:46:15 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:46:15 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 191 |
author_reputation | 58,683,119,745,305 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,743 |
net_rshares | 0 |
There arn't many active voters. Even people who post a blog post tend to write and run, they rarely stay and read a bit (you can tell by the number of pageviews). If the bots disappeared, there would be no upvoting at all because "active users" can't be bothered or simply don't have the time. BTW - I think the 1% votes are stream votes. That is, there is a manual voter who is followed automatically via autosteem or streamian by other voters. The amount you get is determined by the manual voter. If they vote 1%, then all the people following automatically also deliver 1%. If they vote by a higher percentage, you get a higher percentage by the autovotes as well.
author | rose98734 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t014650816z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:46:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:46:54 |
depth | 3 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.780 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.593 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 670 |
author_reputation | 22,746,705,444,341 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,742 |
net_rshares | 30,597,338,085,618 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 30,543,884,496,337 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,275,423,073 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 572,657,771 | 100% | ||
teatree | 0 | 7,872,230,236 | 100% | ||
aenor | 0 | 41,733,278,201 | 100% |
You're bringing up great point. I'm in the top 100 for the best curation score for the past 50 days so it seems I would be bias for keeping curation reward too but I tend to think we might be better off without them. It's still a very complex situation. I don't agree with the comment reward pool being a bad thing. I think this will be a good thing. I was skeptic at first but I'm not exciting to see what will come out of it.
author | teamsteem |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-gduran-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t014829056z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:48:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:48:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 429 |
author_reputation | 284,804,541,406,803 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,753 |
net_rshares | 4,134,489,897 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ocrdu | 0 | 4,134,489,897 | 10% |
As a newcomer to Steemit January 2017. I looked to the voting on posts as a measure of progress with my writing,but am now disappointed to read that the voting can be manipulated by bots and other means,so if the system is flawed and voting discontinued,then what is there to inspire challenge? It reminds me of the Stalin quote -"It isn't the people who vote that counts,it's the people who count the votes" - And - "The more things change the more they stay as they are" https://steemit.com/@ijavee
author | ijavee |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t091352312z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/@ijavee"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 09:13:54 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 09:13:54 |
depth | 1 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.453 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.151 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 505 |
author_reputation | 6,808,817,286,931 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,358 |
net_rshares | 8,341,061,184,151 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
roadscape | 0 | 8,191,080,776,080 | 94% | ||
kenny-crane | 0 | 115,439,130,509 | 100% | ||
whatsup | 0 | 34,541,277,562 | 100% |
>then what is there to inspire challenge? Something you havn't yet been given the taste of, which is called influence. If curation rewards are eliminated you will see what it is, it's pretty cool and you will always want more of it.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-ijavee-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t092427400z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 09:24:27 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 09:24:27 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 234 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,397 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>I looked to the voting on posts as a measure of progress This is a good point. In a usual social media site your circle will grow organically and you have to engage a lot in order to get votes but on steemit you don't have to, you just have to be lucky. It's like a lottery. And there is no way to measure progress because you posts will either get pennies or tens of dollars, there is no organic growth its a flat line ( luck/no luck/luck/no luck)
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-ijavee-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t061149300z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 06:11:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 06:14:30 |
depth | 2 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 451 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,023 |
net_rshares | 2,538,063,863 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ijavee | 0 | 2,538,063,863 | 100% |
Thank you snowflake. That explains it perfectly.I can now tell friends and family why there can be such a discrepancy in posts that receive similar number of votes but wildly varying rewards.I'm not sure yet that I see this as a positive as you do,but I like Steemit, so onward and hopefully upwards.Cheers.Ivor.
author | ijavee |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-ijavee-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t073509236z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 07:35:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 07:35:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 313 |
author_reputation | 6,808,817,286,931 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,361 |
net_rshares | 115,439,130,509 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
kenny-crane | 0 | 115,439,130,509 | 100% |
I almost always vote at 100%, and I only upvote what I actually read. At 3000 Steem Power, my vote doesn't carry much weight,so I may as well throw all of it behind what I read and find interesting.
author | jacobtothe |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t054004870z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 05:40:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 05:40:09 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 198 |
author_reputation | 568,172,485,826,750 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,620 |
net_rshares | 48,294,140,265 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
whatsup | 0 | 38,369,547,246 | 100% | ||
freebornangel | 0 | 9,163,538,675 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 761,054,344 | 100% |
nice post i followed you
author | kanedizzle08 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170522t162234322z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-05-22 16:22:33 |
last_update | 2017-05-22 16:22:33 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-05-29 16:22:33 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 24 |
author_reputation | 1,950,041,898,490 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 3,667,570 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Agree with all your points why curation currently is bad. Removing it is better than keeping it. However what we nees is to have a loyalty system for peoplw that are active. That is what curation rewards should do. So instead of getting rid of it i would reward users activity. Ie. We should reward people for showing up regularly over time and reading and voting for stuff.
author | knircky |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t143749971z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 14:37:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 14:37:48 |
depth | 1 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 376 |
author_reputation | 212,905,587,244,262 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,657,671 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>We should reward people for showing up regularly over time and reading and voting for stuff. Eliminating curation rewards will naturally do that by giving active users more influence.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-knircky-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t190650200z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:06:51 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:06:51 |
depth | 2 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 185 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,334 |
net_rshares | 0 |
I think removing curation is better than the curation we have now. But I think rewarding users to show up and consume content regularly is optimal. The value is ultimately driven by users showing up and consuming content. I think rewarding them for this with curation reward is good. However the current system instead of rewarding users to do what they want skews the behavior of users into a voting financial game that has nothing to do with consuming and liking content and ultimately corrupts the value creation process in its current form. Would you agree with this or do you think there are other mechanism at play?
author | knircky |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-knircky-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t192237546z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:22:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:24:42 |
depth | 3 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 624 |
author_reputation | 212,905,587,244,262 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,464 |
net_rshares | 0 |
> Curation rewards have turned the site into a fake system run by bots and driven by money > No businesses is going to touch steem in its current form. Absolutely. I haven't posted my long overdue notes on my thoughts of the problem with bots, but I have commented here and there on the importance of consciousness to evaluate content that will represent the reality of what is valued. A site that is being evaluated largely by bots, or autovotes, doesn't represent an accurate evaluation of the content being produced. Of course I concluded the same as you with regards to investors: who the hell would want to invest in a content site that's not even evaluated by human consciousness? Game-picking gambling-mentality free-lottery tickets are also not helpful in that respect, no longer term value and simply a drain of 0 value to the platform. What investor wants that being pumped by whales? SteemSports was the first, but that crap is still around. Curation rewards drive people to go for valued targets, and inhibit evaluation of content for content, which is another big thing I push. Getting rid of them is good all around as I see, I agree with you. Regarding comment votes, look at how much I vote for posts vs. comments, and look at my % votes on posts vs. comments. I'll tell you now, I think I vote for as many or possibly more comments in a day. And I usually keep it at 100%. I don't care about curation rewards ;) > The argument for keeping curation rewards is that investors won't have any incentives to buy steem power if we remove them. > This assumption is incorrect, it is based on the idea that investors care about growing the number of their steem more than growing the value of steem. There is a very vocal minority in this community who are very self centered and believe that growing the number of steem in their wallet is the end goal. It was the same group of people that were bragging about HF16 because they wouldn't receive their inflation anymore. These individuals don't seem to understand that 1 000 000 steem is worth as much as 1 steem when the price is zero. Great point! > ccomment pool because i think it is a terrible idea, it is not KISS at all and do not solve the underlying issue. Same here. Not KISS at all like you say lol. Copies the problem so a separate economic sector, I concluded such in my review of the proposal in the comments when it first came out. It was a very long comment LMAO. > Bots are actually undermining the credibility of the whole site Yup. Wake up people. Resteemed to support a better step forward.
author | krnel |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t045327351z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 04:53:24 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 04:53:24 |
depth | 1 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.183 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.055 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 2,582 |
author_reputation | 1,343,547,270,297,082 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,481 |
net_rshares | 4,620,408,973,429 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
benjojo | 0 | 1,358,488,292,844 | 100% | ||
stellabelle | 0 | 1,767,630,276,612 | 100% | ||
crok | 0 | 4,945,647,195 | 100% | ||
dirty.hera | 0 | 190,829,644 | 100% | ||
timcliff | 0 | 49,075,170,064 | 25% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 1,133,256,809,854 | 100% | ||
carrinm | 0 | 173,910,799,433 | 100% | ||
bitcoinparadise | 0 | 29,780,870,159 | 100% | ||
gamer00 | 0 | 76,257,927,057 | 100% | ||
johnthehoan | 0 | 607,119,231 | 100% | ||
elgeko | 0 | 3,609,216,074 | 100% | ||
dzboston33 | 0 | 22,484,177,910 | 100% | ||
mestyz | 0 | 121,513,786 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 50,323,566 | 100% |
I also would like to repeat this, because everyone needs to get out of their bubble and face up to reality. I've been researching a lot of about what outsiders think of Steemit and it's not pretty what I've found. We need to all face reality before the reputation of Steem degrades further: > Curation rewards have turned the site into a fake system run by bots and driven by money No businesses is going to touch steem in its current form. This is the truth. Absolutely.
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-krnel-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t000849564z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 00:08:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:08:48 |
depth | 2 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.062 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.005 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 473 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,601 |
net_rshares | 1,904,976,484,506 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
snowflake | 0 | 1,064,903,530,860 | 100% | ||
krnel | 0 | 826,758,830,094 | 100% | ||
surpassinggoogle | 0 | 12,584,916,265 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 729,207,287 | 100% |
Absolutely. I've always been for no more bots, but apparently everyone says they are here to stay so that closes down the argument before even looking at the negatives it creates. No matter what the issues, no point in even discussing them apparently because "bots are here to stay". Who wants a social media site evaluated not by people? LOL. It's pretty obvious the low value that gives for outsiders... Face reality indeed. Thanks for adding that feedback.
author | krnel |
---|---|
permlink | re-stellabelle-re-krnel-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t001141761z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 00:11:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:11:39 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 459 |
author_reputation | 1,343,547,270,297,082 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,614 |
net_rshares | 54,133,047,824 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
gamer00 | 0 | 53,829,457,194 | 100% | ||
johnthehoan | 0 | 303,590,630 | 100% |
This topic has been debated a lot, but I do feel that many of the problems you point out (correctly) can be fixed by a better system. The pro-curation rewards side will say it's what will attract most people to join, by lowering the barrier of entry to participation, and many support increasing rewards to 50-50. The anti curation rewards side would say it's a waste of resources that feeds bots and the greedy. The truth is in the middle. Curation is a valuable service require a lot of time and effort if performed consistently and correctly. Those who do so deserve a reward for their services. The current system is broken, but the idea is not fundamentally flawed. Things will get a lot better with the new rewards curve in HF17, so we are making progress. > Curation reward discourage whales to spread their upvotes > Guilds were meant to spread the rewards around but because of curation rewards they ended up doing the opposite. Guilds owner are encouraged to not spread their vote because if they do they will lose out on curation rewards. These are obviously false even today. Curators stands to earn far more from voting on new authors who don't get much votes. Or whichever post has the least vote competition from bots etc. In fact, some have started spreading their votes through comments as they are mostly all unvoted. This is why curators that vote for semi-established authors (Steem Guild) made a tiny fraction in curation rewards compared to curators that spread their votes on new authors (Curie or blocktrades) or curators voting on comments (abit). As a matter of fact, the opposite problem is true - curators are too heavily incentivized to spread their voting rather than continue to support good authors. Of course, this is another problem that can be fixed with a simpler system.
author | liberosist |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t100846437z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 10:08:51 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 10:14:18 |
depth | 1 |
children | 29 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.956 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.652 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,815 |
author_reputation | 177,167,275,265,899 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,560 |
net_rshares | 31,188,899,373,525 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 31,167,204,973,887 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,377,780,044 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 572,657,771 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,663,782,102 | 100% | ||
bhikkhu | 0 | 2,080,179,721 | 100% |
>Curation is a valuable service How is curation a valuable service? Valuable to whom? To me the concept of curating is flawed because it forces people to vote for stuff they are not interested in. It goes against the natural will of people. As more and more content gets published on the steem blockchain the less sense it will make to curate, why would you upvote family pics from people you never heard of? People are going to form their own little communities and upvote within that community, curating content on the whole blockchain makes no sense. >These are obviously false even today. Curators stands to earn far more from voting on new authors who don't get much votes. Or whichever post has the least vote competition from bots etc. In fact, some have started spreading their votes through comments as they are mostly all unvoted. There is a nuance between spread and diversify. What you refer to is diversification. I am talking about the weight guilds put on posts, they never vote under 100%. They put all the weight on the posts that they vote to pocket max curation rewards.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-liberosist-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t201050500z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 20:10:51 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 20:10:51 |
depth | 2 |
children | 28 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.047 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.015 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,096 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,194 |
net_rshares | 1,804,455,907,375 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
stellabelle | 0 | 1,804,455,907,375 | 100% |
Curation is valuable to the whole platform. //Edit: to be clear, I'm not talking about the "curation" happening now on Steem, but the natural curation behavior. Image a new user come to this website to look for popular contents. She'll see the trending page. The posts are there because the curators (voters) have done their work. Image a Q/A post which have thousands of replies. It's the curators that brought the most valuable replies to the top, so saves later readers' time. > To me the concept of curating is flawed because it forces people to vote for stuff they are not interested in. It goes against the natural will of people. As more and more content gets published on the steem blockchain the less sense it will make to curate, why would you upvote family pics from people you never heard of? People are going to form their own little communities and upvote within that community, curating content on the whole blockchain makes no sense. It's not the concept of curating that is flawed, it's the curation reward distribution mechanism that is flawed. A bad-designed incentive mechanism brings bad results. IMHO it's better to make the incentives aligned, but not eliminate them. I strongly suggest you to read my post and the discussions there: https://steemit.com/curation/@abit/benefits-of-pure-linear-reward-distribution .
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t224414010z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/curation/@abit/benefits-of-pure-linear-reward-distribution"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 22:45:00 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:06:36 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 3.503 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.167 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,342 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,232 |
net_rshares | 25,937,250,998,719 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
smooth | 0 | 25,537,601,071,123 | 100% | ||
dennygalindo | 0 | 12,073,674,702 | 100% | ||
aurel | 0 | 372,225,736,235 | 40% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,350,516,659 | 100% |
[Nesting] >Good content naturally rises to the top, there is no need to incentivizes people to vote. But why not reward the people who have done their work well (assume it has really been done well)? With a "right" reward people will feel even better, so more engagement. >Also currently it is not 'good content' that rises to the top , it is 'content that will earn the most money'. The platform don't really reflects what most people want. To be clear, I'm not saying trending in current system is natural. But current design is not good doesn't mean changing it to anything else is good.
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t231557590z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 23:16:45 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 23:16:45 |
depth | 3 |
children | 7 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 593 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,398 |
net_rshares | 0 |
> How is curation a valuable service? Valuable to whom? To me the concept of curating is flawed because it forces people to vote for stuff they are not interested in. It goes against the natural will of people. As more and more content gets published on the steem blockchain the less sense it will make to curate, why would you upvote family pics from people you never heard of? People are going to form their own little communities and upvote within that community, curating content on the whole blockchain makes no sense. It's a valuable service to the community, as many have stated before. Again, that's a function of the current system rather than the concept of curation rewards itself. You are right that in July 2016 the curation landscape was really messed up, and only 20-30 authors were being upvoted regularly. The bots were all swarming to these authors, while the rest of the community went unrewarded. However, things have changed dramatically since. With the emergence of curation guilds that focused sincerely on quality and seeking out new authors, bots have had to adapt and use clever algorithms to determine quality and vote on posts by new authors. Indeed, this has also encouraged manual curators to vote on good posts they like, because they know a curation guild or whale would be looking out for these posts. Today, the curation community is so efficient that it is almost impossible for a new author creating good content to go unnoticed for long. This is because the curation rewards allow incentive for intensive curation. Several curators spend several hours every single day trying to find the best quality posts and they'll stop doing so and switch to casual mode without an incentive. Casual mode is where votes keep on piling on the same authors over and over again, with no one bothering to dig to the depths to find great content that was lost. Without these curators, Steemit would be the wasteland it was in July/Aug 2016. Thousands of users left ignored with zero exposure. Today, while influx of users hasn't happened, many of them have been at least discovered and given a shot at being retained. I will agree though that with the Communities feature incoming, curation rewards may not be required for voting and could be restructured to actual curation, Communities moderators etc. > There is a nuance between spread and diversify. What you refer to is diversification. I am talking about the weight guilds put on posts, they never vote under 100%. They put all the weight on the posts that they vote to pocket max curation rewards. This is also demonstrably false. Steem Trail does vote with most posts at 100%, but Curie's average strength has always been about 40%-70%, while Steem Guild was about 25% for many months. Steem Guild has since changed their focus, but your claim of "they never vote under 100%" isn't true at all. That said, the top independent curators blocktrades and abit do vote 100%.
author | liberosist |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t031424193z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 03:14:27 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 03:14:27 |
depth | 3 |
children | 4 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 2,959 |
author_reputation | 177,167,275,265,899 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,413 |
net_rshares | 34,354,854,876 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
snowflake | 0 | 34,354,854,876 | 1% |
> How is curation a valuable service? Valuable to whom? It is extremely valuable to users and to the platform itself. Any site with a large amount of content would be a complete jumble of unusable nonsense if there weren't some form of curation. Most successful (centralized) sites explicitly use a combination of human and algorithmic curation, or algorithmic with some degree of user input. They spend a lot of money developing maintaining and operating these systems. BTW, another word for algorithmic curation in the context of a decentralized system is bot voting.
author | smooth |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t062519500z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 06:25:18 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 06:25:18 |
depth | 3 |
children | 6 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 570 |
author_reputation | 253,602,537,834,068 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,655,100 |
net_rshares | 0 |
YES: > It goes against the natural will of people. YOU ARE CORRECT. This place is fake and eveybody knows it. This lack of real substance degrades our reptuation and makes people mock us. Hell, I can't even stand on firm ground when I tell people I write on this platform. We need readers, real people, and those who actually give a shit about reading to come in here and add value. We don't need to line the whale pockets of those who don't even like to read.
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t000138990z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 00:01:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:03:45 |
depth | 3 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.032 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.003 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 461 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,573 |
net_rshares | 1,171,258,310,872 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
everythink | 0 | 41,872,312,981 | 100% | ||
dennygalindo | 0 | 11,348,921,621 | 100% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 1,064,903,530,860 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 34,453,275,930 | 100% | ||
wordsword | 0 | 2,109,388,968 | 100% | ||
skypal | 0 | 15,841,673,225 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 729,207,287 | 100% |
I actually wouldn't mind trying a hardfork "cycle" where curation rewards are omitted. I curate because I love to read, comment and upvote. I rarely look at what I've earned in curation rewards because... well, I think most of them are about .001 anyway. But if we get rid of curation rewards, PLEASE also get rid of the vote slider for accounts with less than 100m vests! It is so pointless when I see minnows voting 1% because they heard somewhere that it would "hurt their vote power." But piggybacking on what @neoxian said about flagging - there must also be a striked difference between flagging and downvotes. Flagging = major offenses and potential to get nuked. Downvotes = difference of opinion and no effect on earnings. My opinion is based on the fact that no one likes a thumbs down - but when it affects ***one's wallet*** that's a whole new world of butt hurt.
author | merej99 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t022810252z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["neoxian"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 02:28:00 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 02:28:00 |
depth | 1 |
children | 13 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 884 |
author_reputation | 109,727,414,619,488 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,868 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>But if we get rid of curation rewards, PLEASE also get rid of the vote slider for accounts with less than 100m vests! It is so pointless when I see minnows voting 1% because they heard somewhere that it would "hurt their vote power." This kind of mentality will be gone so you won't have to remove vote slider, everyone will be voting at higher percentage because they will finally be voting for something they like instead of something that will earn them curation rewards. >But piggybacking on what @neoxian said about flagging - there must also be a striked difference between flagging and downvotes. Flagging = major offenses and potential to get nuked. Downvotes = difference of opinion and no effect on earnings. My opinion is based on the fact that no one likes a thumbs down - but when it affects one's wallet that's a whole new world of butt hurt. I don't really see the point of a flag, there is no such thing at the blockchain level. There is only upvote and downvote so even if something were to be flagged on steemit, it wouldn't be flagged on esteem8 or busy.org or esteem. Like I said above downvoting is an integral part of the system, the huge unbalance in power made this feature controversial when in fact its essential. >My opinion is based on the fact that no one likes a thumbs down - but when it affects one's wallet that's a whole new world of butt hurt. When the voting period is still ongoing the rewards are not in your wallet yet Please read the following post https://steemit.com/payout/@timcliff/everything-you-need-to-know-about-potential-payouts-and-flagging-for-new-users
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-merej99-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t024421900z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["neoxian"],"links":["https://steemit.com/payout/@timcliff/everything-you-need-to-know-about-potential-payouts-and-flagging-for-new-users"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 02:44:21 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 02:44:21 |
depth | 2 |
children | 12 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,612 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,942 |
net_rshares | 0 |
>everyone will be voting at higher percentage because they will finally be voting for something they like instead of something that will earn them curation rewards. I think my pure linear proposal serves this better. https://steemit.com/curation/@abit/benefits-of-pure-linear-reward-distribution
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-merej99-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t215243290z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/curation/@abit/benefits-of-pure-linear-reward-distribution"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 21:53:30 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 21:53:30 |
depth | 3 |
children | 11 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 296 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,946 |
net_rshares | 0 |
A very small change that could help us find our 'Product-Market Fit' and thus find those hungry new users that we could attract to Steemit!
author | mindhunter |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t110150276z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 10:59:30 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 10:59:30 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 139 |
author_reputation | 203,929,529,404,460 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,748 |
net_rshares | 32,925,407,279 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ocrdu | 0 | 31,697,712,797 | 100% | ||
robvanvarenberg | 0 | 1,227,694,482 | 100% |
The current curation awards encourage upvoting and discourage flagging. Because flagging earns no curation. This is actually a pretty big deal for me. There would be much more flagging without curation awards and this would hurt the platform.
author | neoxian |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t015533242z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 01:55:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 01:55:33 |
depth | 1 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.021 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 247 |
author_reputation | 167,518,216,312,453 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,773 |
net_rshares | 771,116,553,094 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
neoxian | 0 | 752,739,030,919 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,663,782,102 | 100% | ||
accumulator | 0 | 2,713,740,073 | 100% |
Downvoting is an integral part of the system, it has become an issue because of power concentration. If you remove curation rewards, users will have a much bigger say and so they would be able to upvote any downvoted posts back up Please read this post I explained this in more details https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/my-take-on-what-happened-to-karenmckersie
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-neoxian-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t020740900z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/my-take-on-what-happened-to-karenmckersie"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 02:07:42 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 02:07:42 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.033 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.011 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 368 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,646,811 |
net_rshares | 1,396,857,840,090 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
benjojo | 0 | 1,358,488,292,844 | 100% | ||
whatsup | 0 | 38,369,547,246 | 100% |
I have another proposal: Build a competitor to Steemit on a different blockchain with the incentives built the way you wan't them.
author | onthewayout |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t201050933z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 20:11:00 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 20:11:00 |
depth | 1 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.380 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.124 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 130 |
author_reputation | 13,205,527,560,619 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,195 |
net_rshares | 7,385,930,552,561 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
juanmiguelsalas | 0 | 26,923,685,849 | 100% | ||
heiditravels | 0 | 395,118,113,170 | 100% | ||
elyaque | 0 | 118,653,146,828 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,350,516,659 | 100% | ||
shaka | 0 | 673,966,961,689 | 100% | ||
felixxx | 0 | 49,512,799,016 | 100% | ||
twinner | 0 | 1,274,477,307,946 | 100% | ||
gargon | 0 | 194,351,426,147 | 100% | ||
pgarcgo | 0 | 147,978,012,598 | 100% | ||
wartrapa | 0 | 51,127,059,593 | 100% | ||
albagargon | 0 | 866,316,460 | 100% | ||
pollux.one | 0 | 77,195,191,152 | 100% | ||
uwelang | 0 | 18,879,265,899 | 80% | ||
titin | 0 | 49,048,556,667 | 100% | ||
peccio | 0 | 12,777,635,573 | 100% | ||
jgcastrillo19 | 0 | 76,864,199,405 | 100% | ||
permacryptofolio | 0 | 12,742,593,273 | 100% | ||
juliamateo | 0 | 2,340,688,682 | 100% | ||
teo | 0 | 3,215,760,766 | 100% | ||
alfredozofio | 0 | 3,322,675,422 | 100% | ||
uhu | 0 | 12,781,667,755 | 100% | ||
freiheit50 | 0 | 30,602,785,728 | 100% | ||
beers | 0 | 36,742,951,620 | 100% | ||
dulcinea | 0 | 4,397,372,874 | 100% | ||
steemperor | 0 | 68,104,837,099 | 100% | ||
steempire | 0 | 121,327,282,680 | 100% | ||
bellastella | 0 | 4,664,251,473 | 100% | ||
aniestudio | 0 | 12,036,214,991 | 100% | ||
dennis1 | 0 | 1,812,187,032 | 100% | ||
tamim | 0 | 3,849,186,330,144 | 100% | ||
loreennaa | 0 | 835,762,649 | 100% | ||
crazyhorselady | 0 | 572,944,226 | 100% | ||
steem-munich | 0 | 12,615,267,153 | 100% | ||
steem.map | 0 | 12,776,018,918 | 100% | ||
sonstiges | 0 | 12,492,911,973 | 100% | ||
teacher | 0 | 269,853,452 | 100% |
There is a license that prevent this, without it people would have forked long ago.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-onthewayout-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t203107400z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 20:31:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 20:31:09 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 83 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,328 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Your proposal is aiming for an entirely different product. Not a product that I would place a bet on, but no license can prevent you from building it.
author | shaka |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-onthewayout-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t002226743z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 00:22:27 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:25:36 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 3.415 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.135 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 150 |
author_reputation | 738,584,176,624,744 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,653 |
net_rshares | 25,565,223,228,197 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
smooth | 0 | 25,537,601,071,123 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,037,240,809 | 100% | ||
surpassinggoogle | 0 | 12,584,916,265 | 100% |
Having people view, comment then vote should be rewarded. That would be a win win for steemit authors and community. Why should a few bad eggs take away something that was a tool/reward for everyone.
author | pitterpatter |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170307t125309318z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-07 12:53:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-07 12:53:48 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 200 |
author_reputation | 15,046,024,868,692 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,664,874 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Oh, for goodness sakes, not again. Where to begin? Obviously, I can't respond to your whole article in one comment, but a few points. -1- When the whitepaper was written, people could be rewarded for witnessing, market making, mining, curating, or authoring. After hf17, only witnessing, curating, and authoring will be left. When you take away curating, how far behind do you think the author rewards will be? Your arguments all apply to authors, too. People write for free on other web sites, and the rewards distribution changes the things that they post and write about. Why shouldn't authors be satisfied with the same long-term increasing value of their steem power that you expect the voters to be happy with? -2- Writing a bot and keeping it running is not "passive investing." It's taking an active interest in the content on the blockchain. To get a reward, the bot needs to predict what people will vote on. And yes, someone who invests the time and resources it takes to do that well should be rewarded. The better the voting, the bigger the reward. -3- Look at the "Blockchain Operations Distribution" chart at the bottom of this page - https://steemdata.com/charts And your conclusion is that the author rewards should stay and the curation rewards should be eliminated? That slice of curation rewards is an awful lot of unhappy customers to alienate all at the same time. Who, exactly, do you think is going to read the articles if just the writers are still here using the site? -4- Finally, the 1% voters are not manual voters. They're bots in pursuit of something very similar to your own goal. Here are [the](https://steemit.com/socialist-bot/@fyrstikken/the-anonymous-winfrey-bot-upvotes-for-everyone-download-here-easy-steps-for-n00bs) [announcements](https://steemit.com/curation/@fyrstikken/i-am-starting-the-winfrey-voting-guild-and-100-people-can-join). And Dan's comment is very disappointing (frightening, actually...)
author | remlaps |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t063706707z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemdata.com/charts","https://steemit.com/socialist-bot/@fyrstikken/the-anonymous-winfrey-bot-upvotes-for-everyone-download-here-easy-steps-for-n00bs","https://steemit.com/curation/@fyrstikken/i-am-starting-the-winfrey-voting-guild-and-100-people-can-join"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 06:37:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 06:37:09 |
depth | 1 |
children | 21 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 5.414 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.803 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,968 |
author_reputation | 33,149,047,814,372 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,816 |
net_rshares | 32,683,060,273,944 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 30,543,892,370,310 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,275,423,073 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 554,762,216 | 100% | ||
craig-grant | 0 | 527,369,691,913 | 100% | ||
hisnameisolllie | 0 | 27,949,531,746 | 100% | ||
pangur-ban | 0 | 2,582,294,046 | 100% | ||
tee-em | 0 | 75,601,236,081 | 100% | ||
bacchist | 0 | 133,612,391,079 | 100% | ||
rouketas | 0 | 50,429,942 | 100% | ||
thylbom | 0 | 183,161,374,859 | 100% | ||
greymass | 0 | 33,434,202,924 | 100% | ||
dirty.hera | 0 | 143,127,229 | 100% | ||
steemradio | 0 | 1,085,254,882 | 100% | ||
neptun | 0 | 214,376,336,359 | 100% | ||
tradz | 0 | 1,481,829,358 | 100% | ||
ats-david | 0 | 320,153,145,397 | 100% | ||
l0k1 | 0 | 193,148,547,343 | 100% | ||
ebargains | 0 | 43,271,402,837 | 100% | ||
littlescribe | 0 | 19,146,877,005 | 100% | ||
burnin | 0 | 13,515,281,361 | 100% | ||
bestoftherest | 0 | 4,899,063,569 | 100% | ||
surpassinggoogle | 0 | 12,584,916,265 | 100% | ||
ninkhisibir | 0 | 3,787,012,780 | 100% | ||
supergoodliving | 0 | 31,587,677,078 | 100% | ||
goldsteem | 0 | 19,591,816,326 | 100% | ||
reisman | 0 | 2,185,786,998 | 100% | ||
tradeqwik | 0 | 199,485,138,023 | 100% | ||
writingamigo | 0 | 40,909,086,852 | 100% | ||
tamersameeh | 0 | 563,039,190 | 100% | ||
johnthehoan | 0 | 303,590,630 | 100% | ||
personz | 0 | 26,452,677,426 | 100% | ||
steemnews24 | 0 | 125,974,688 | 100% | ||
tonylondon | 0 | 835,901,044 | 100% | ||
michaelnonso | 0 | 100,138,223 | 100% | ||
benjiparler | 0 | 451,329,328 | 100% | ||
mestyz | 0 | 121,522,945 | 100% | ||
emeka | 0 | 98,343,575 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 729,207,287 | 100% | ||
kamidela | 0 | 51,025,493 | 100% | ||
evildeathcore | 0 | 324,575,013 | 100% | ||
marjuki95 | 0 | 66,941,251 | 100% |
> And Dan's comment is very disappointing (frightening, actually...) Agreed. I would downvote it to zero if I saw it earlier.
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t220200963z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 22:02:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 22:02:48 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 126 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,010 |
net_rshares | 53,394,506,067 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
dennygalindo | 0 | 11,590,388,038 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,350,506,460 | 100% | ||
personz | 0 | 26,453,611,569 | 100% |
Agree it's frightening. I think curation rewards are the most innovative thing here. Everything else has been done somewhere else. Lots of places don't pay you to vote. Lots of places pay you on views. Curation is only originality of steem (sbd are also original but not being used well)
author | dennygalindo |
---|---|
permlink | re-abit-re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t163952083z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 16:39:51 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 16:39:51 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 288 |
author_reputation | 6,552,498,469,686 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,658,446 |
net_rshares | 0 |
> Writing a bot and keeping it running is not "passive investing." It's taking an active interest in the content on the blockchain. Agree! 😆 But disagree that it's always the case that > To get a reward, the bot needs to predict what people will vote on. Not all bots directly attempt to predict what people will vote on.
author | personz |
---|---|
permlink | re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t190512901z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:05:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:05:12 |
depth | 2 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 326 |
author_reputation | 42,452,361,038,560 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,317 |
net_rshares | 14,414,499,826 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
remlaps | 0 | 14,414,499,826 | 100% |
True. I oversimplified that a bit.
author | remlaps |
---|---|
permlink | re-personz-re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t230559530z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 23:06:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 23:06:03 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 35 |
author_reputation | 33,149,047,814,372 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,022 |
net_rshares | 25,852,393,125 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
personz | 0 | 25,852,393,125 | 100% |
>When the whitepaper was written, people could be rewarded for witnessing, market making, mining, curating, or authoring. To me steem is a blockchain to reward content creators on the internet. It's a one purpose protocol. There is no need to create extra incentives for people to earn, the innovation is already there, rewarding content creators. I could be wrong but from the whitepaper back then it looks like founders where more focused on creating a simple site, they didn't really envision steem to be used by by many different websites. But this is the direction it's going, and if you want websites to integrate steem it needs to be as simple as possible and removing all the complexe mechanism and incentives is part of the process. I'm sorry but I didn't understand the rest of the questions in 1), please formulate differently.. >-2- Writing a bot and keeping it running is not "passive investing Never said that. I said investors want passive investment and yeah curating is active investing, most investors have no time for that. >And your conclusion is that the author rewards should stay and the curation rewards should be eliminated? Curators ( 80-90% of which are bots) bring absolutely no value to the platform, authors do however. >Who, exactly, do you think is going to read the articles if just the writers are still here using the site? The vast majority of curators are running bots, nobody is reading content already. It literally can't get any worst. The algorithm for curating encourages people to vote at 30 min, this means that almost every curators is upvoting content blindly without prior reading, curating doesn't incentives reading at all, it actually does the opposite. Reading is part of what I call human interactions, it's the same as commenting, writing,voting, it is basically a form of engagement. If you eliminate curation rewards you will increase all forms of engagement because active users will have a lot more stake to vote with and would actually start upvoting for things that they like instead of content that will earn them money. >Finally, the 1% voters are not manual voters. They're bots in pursuit of something very similar to your own goal. Are you saying that curation rewards do not incentivize this behavior?
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t073208300z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 07:32:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 07:36:45 |
depth | 2 |
children | 14 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 2,281 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,648,017 |
net_rshares | 90,789,221,939 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
everythink | 0 | 41,872,312,981 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 34,453,229,097 | 100% | ||
edje | 0 | 12,383,500,140 | 100% | ||
bhikkhu | 0 | 2,080,179,721 | 100% |
> Never said that. I said investors want passive investment and yeah curating is active investing, most investors have no time for that. There's more than one way to invest in steem. A passive investor can fund a business on the steem block chain like steemsports or busy.org or steemvoter. They hire entrepreneurs to do the labor. That's how markets work. Can you name one other product or platform that became successful by taking choices away from customers and investors? If you get rid of curation rewards, you may as well also get rid of steem power. No one's going to tie their money up for 90 days with no reward for doing so. The few investors who remain will leave their money in steem, so they can get out quickly whenever they want to. Aside from curation rewards, every other benefit for steempower holders is also a benefit for steem holders. > Curators ( 80-90% of which are bots) bring absolutely no value to the platform, authors do however. Then why not eliminate voting completely? > Are you saying that curation rewards do not incentivize this behavior? No, I'm saying that if you can't get a basic and obvious fact like this right, the rest of your argument probably also hasn't been researched very carefully. You just throw out your own beliefs as if they were fact, but you have no basis in data for the things you say. That's a dangerous way to design a platform.
author | remlaps |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t143547786z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 14:35:48 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 14:35:48 |
depth | 3 |
children | 13 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.583 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.528 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,403 |
author_reputation | 33,149,047,814,372 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,649,826 |
net_rshares | 29,924,385,526,627 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,920,555,341,338 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,275,423,073 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 554,762,216 | 100% |
Guild owners voting with their clients's accounts to skew public opinion is a pretty desperate and dishonest behavior. This is one of those thing that you get with curation rewards..
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-remlaps-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t203950700z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 20:39:51 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 20:47:36 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.033 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 183 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,660,007 |
net_rshares | 1,099,578,935,130 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
snowflake | 0 | 1,099,578,935,130 | 100% |
> Curation rewards provides a financial incentive for users to spend a very significant amount of their time discovering good content. NO, in terms of financial amount, the curation reward is far from enough to incentivise any users, including whales, to spend their time on the job. When we talk financial, it's not the absolute amount that we should be looking, but the return-on-investment (ROI). Just have a look at how much a Top curator can earns: http://steemwhales.com/trending/?p=1&d=1&s=cr The average rewards received by the top-10 curators (my bot is among them) are somewhere 0.05~0.1% per-day, which translated into and ROI of 20~40% p.a. While this figure might sound attractive to some guys, it's not attractive at all if you take into consideration the risk associating (There's high possibility that your SP will become valueless if Steemit couldn't turn out success). And bear in mind that these return-rates can only be achieved with bots which mainly bring negative value to the platform. Most curators (including whales who running bots) are having an ROI lower than 15% p.a. Those who honestly do manual curation will hardly get any better than 3%p.a.... and for the coming HF17 with more linear curve, we should see the rewards spread more evenly, which will result in overall lower ROI even for top curation-bots. Any incentive that couldn't beat the minimum interest-rate or inflation in our real-world, is considered negative incentive. IMO, the curation reward is never going to be a main reason that's drive people to do the curation.
author | ripplerm |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t061234126z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["http://steemwhales.com/trending/?p=1&d=1&s=cr"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 06:12:36 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 06:12:36 |
depth | 1 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.593 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.531 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,574 |
author_reputation | 12,900,481,895,884 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,748 |
net_rshares | 29,958,017,702,256 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,920,921,302,236 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,275,423,073 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 554,762,216 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,350,516,659 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 17,915,698,072 | 50% |
I agree with you, generally. But I disagree with the claim that human curators can't earn as much ROI as bots. I was right on the heels of @biophil's bot for a few weeks until I had to back off a liitle of the time I was putting into the platform. I was right there earning ~25%+ per year. On a regular curation day, I can still earn over 0.05%, even without using my 40 daily votes.
author | ats-david |
---|---|
permlink | re-ripplerm-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t003213392z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["biophil"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 00:32:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:32:12 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.060 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.353 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 383 |
author_reputation | 324,017,334,201,433 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,685 |
net_rshares | 28,054,760,763,360 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 28,051,171,045,657 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,070,746,598 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 518,971,105 | 100% |
Thats offtopic but that the dear voter doesn't even give a click when a full-time marketer like me needs 100 to print steem on lighters shows that nobody cares about working (not posting a link on twitter but hard physical work on the street) to get new users.
author | shla-rafia |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t163010141z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 16:30:21 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 16:30:21 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 260 |
author_reputation | 67,630,971,735,138 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,658,381 |
net_rshares | 75,408,842,133 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
shla-rafia | 0 | 74,185,741,232 | 100% | ||
rouketas | 0 | 50,429,942 | 100% | ||
johnthehoan | 0 | 303,612,070 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 818,033,396 | 100% | ||
kamidela | 0 | 51,025,493 | 100% |
this was a bad idea to being with, and it remains a bad idea. Lets print money to pay people for doing nothing while depending on people to curate for free isn't a business model, its a fantasy.
author | sigmajin |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t160634837z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 16:06:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 16:06:33 |
depth | 1 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 196 |
author_reputation | 35,847,511,233,614 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,658,230 |
net_rshares | 25,932,864,808 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
sigmajin | 0 | 11,831,723,674 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 14,101,141,134 | 100% |
Still not getting the notion of increasing the value of steem I see..
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-sigmajin-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t190527000z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:05:27 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:05:27 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 69 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,323 |
net_rshares | 0 |
i get it. this just won't do it. youre not going to increase the value of steem by printing more of it and giving it away free. it doesnt work that way.
author | sigmajin |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-sigmajin-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t194445399z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 19:44:42 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 19:52:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 155 |
author_reputation | 35,847,511,233,614 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,659,617 |
net_rshares | 25,932,864,808 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
sigmajin | 0 | 11,831,723,674 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 14,101,141,134 | 100% |
The only reason I upvoted this and commented is because I want money ;)
author | sixexgames |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t125703513z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 12:57:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 12:57:03 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 71 |
author_reputation | 2,670,490,697,484 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,649,328 |
net_rshares | 952,097,694 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
sixexgames | 0 | 952,097,694 | 100% |
You actually bring up a great point. People will think SteemIt is some sort of scam when there is like 1,000 upvotes and like .10 cents.
author | steemitqa |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170307t014250430z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-07 01:42:51 |
last_update | 2017-03-07 01:42:51 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 136 |
author_reputation | 22,135,803,163,402 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,662,004 |
net_rshares | 0 |
I am in complete and total agreement with removing curation rewards as you have outlined and shown with clear logic. As it is right now, the experiment of paying people (mostly whales) to curate has failed. # Let me repeat, it is a failure. If any value is to ever be created from this website, it will need to focus on ORGANIC CURATION, ORGANIC READERS AND ENGAGEMENT. This will happen ORGANICALLY because readers, writers and curators will do this. In fact, they will do it better than bots. I am saying this despite the fact that I am currently being rewarded with curation rewards. But to me, it's not even worth it because this system is NOT working well. We need to listen to the cold, hard truth, admit failure, and improve. Creating a valuable site is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than having our little numbers go up in our individual accounts. As snowflake said, if Steem goes to zero, our numbers will be worthless. @dantheman, let's do this. I am completely behind this 100%. Building something that is valuable and that we are all proud of is of central importance. Enough of the fakery. Enough. We need drastic improvements over people bickering about half-eaten chicken wings.....scraps, mere scraps. We are all better than this. We can make this place valuable, if we're smart about understanding what creates REAL VALUE.
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t235925957z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["dantheman"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 23:59:24 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 00:09:42 |
depth | 1 |
children | 6 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.118 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.003 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,333 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,561 |
net_rshares | 2,938,893,637,847 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
stellabelle | 0 | 1,804,455,907,375 | 100% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 1,099,255,257,662 | 100% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 34,453,265,523 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 729,207,287 | 100% |
Emotional words don't make much sense. We all know current mechanism is not working, but it doesn't mean your solution will work. Please explain why removing curation rewards WILL work better (than a linear reward distribution mechanism, or the flatter curve proposed for HF17).
author | abit |
---|---|
permlink | re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t014226820z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 01:43:15 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 01:43:15 |
depth | 2 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 280 |
author_reputation | 141,171,499,037,785 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,057 |
net_rshares | 13,787,782,442 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
remlaps | 0 | 13,787,782,442 | 100% |
Social media sites are all about emotion, if your economic model doesn't cater for that, you're bound to fail. Having said that: predicting the future is very hard. If the new curve doesn't yield the results we want, maybe even proving the underlying economic thinking wrong, we can pick up the discussion about abolishing curation rewards again.
author | ocrdu |
---|---|
permlink | re-abit-re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t144650052z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 14:46:54 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 14:48:12 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 346 |
author_reputation | 140,931,335,327,250 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,657,729 |
net_rshares | 0 |
A linear reward curve will improve power concentration but people will still be voting for thing that pay instead of things that they like. Another positive when eliminating curation rewards is that active users will have more power, and if whales are smart about increasing the value of steem they will refrain from voting to let the minnows/dolphins ( who actually buy steem power) do their thing.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-abit-re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t060038400z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 06:00:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 06:00:39 |
depth | 3 |
children | 3 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 399 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,654,981 |
net_rshares | 0 |
http://i.giphy.com/IIv5dqZIh2rMQ.gif No idea why this post is $6.14 when it has 207 comments and 305 views. broken.....
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t230400631z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"image":["http://i.giphy.com/IIv5dqZIh2rMQ.gif"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 23:04:00 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 23:04:00 |
depth | 1 |
children | 11 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.054 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 120 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,008 |
net_rshares | 1,620,864,501,103 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
stellabelle | 0 | 1,620,455,484,405 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 409,016,698 | 100% |
It's a controversial subject or/and whales are not ready for this >Steemit is reaching that tricky stage where early adopters become resistant to change in service of "protecting their existing benefits" while also being aware that continued growth depends on making changes in such ways that the community becomes attractive to newcomers.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t235308800z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 23:53:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 23:53:09 |
depth | 2 |
children | 10 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 341 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,346 |
net_rshares | 0 |
I'm a semi early adopter and I am all for this. When something is not working, I'm all for fixing it. The reason you're getting resistance is the same reason most empires imploded. Humans are stuck in a downward cycle. SAD!
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t235940957z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 23:59:39 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 23:59:39 |
depth | 3 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 224 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,400 |
net_rshares | 103,907,890,811 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
snowflake | 0 | 103,089,857,415 | 8% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 818,033,396 | 100% |
I will say though, I invested only my time, so my perception is different. I also have a very different understanding of money. To me, money is just energy. But when a bad path is followed for too long, that's when people usually lose it all.
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170307t000113364z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-07 00:01:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-07 00:01:12 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 242 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,412 |
net_rshares | 409,016,698 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ambyr00 | 0 | 409,016,698 | 100% |
The reality is: YOUR POST IS VIRAL. It's good that it's on the trending page, but quite sad that it only made six bucks. Obviously, if i was a whale, I'd put my 100% behind this post, FOR THE COMMENTS ALONE....
author | stellabelle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-stellabelle-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170307t000245139z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-07 00:02:45 |
last_update | 2017-03-07 00:02:45 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 210 |
author_reputation | 516,061,669,130,124 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,427 |
net_rshares | 4,543,507,220 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ocrdu | 0 | 4,134,490,522 | 10% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 409,016,698 | 100% |
210 comments, is no joke. this is a huge topic. Who knew!
author | surpassinggoogle |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t234004595z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"busy/1.0.0"} |
created | 2017-03-06 23:40:03 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 23:40:03 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 57 |
author_reputation | 527,661,560,108,742 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,661,277 |
net_rshares | 0 |
Hey, I am trying to catch up. I am still new to this community. But have been seeing many good things with this community, And received a lot supports from people. Your article is very interesting. I also tend to agree with your conclusion. But how we can make it happen? Thanks
author | susanli3769 |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170904t031357945z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-09-04 03:13:57 |
last_update | 2017-09-04 03:13:57 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-09-11 03:13:57 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 278 |
author_reputation | 1,306,124,128,287,106 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 13,804,009 |
net_rshares | 0 |
author | timcliff |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t062758988z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 06:27:57 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 06:27:57 |
depth | 1 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 30 |
author_reputation | 272,954,445,077,789 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,647,788 |
net_rshares | 141,398,316,549 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
snowflake | 0 | 103,028,769,303 | 7% | ||
whatsup | 0 | 38,369,547,246 | 100% |
I disagree that the curation reward should be completely removed. It would certainly be a good idea to consider reducing it to something like 10% or 5%. The code is already there and an infrastructure was built around it. I can think of many inefficiencies that can be resolved by that extra incentive. (I'm not an expert and didn't think everything through, but that seems like a safer alternative) The way the reward curve was made combined with curation reward meant that cabals would make money by colluding to upvote the same content, no matter what the content was. The content upvoted by these guilds is, by internet standard, garbage. They are often the kind of posts that one wouldn't bother posting on their own facebook feed. Yet this "100% original content" get created for the sole purpose of being posted on steem. Curie has a mission to encourage people who fail. People who manage to fail repetitively but show perseverance get the equivalent of a welfare handout. <b>How unspectacular is this from the outside world?</b> https://steemit.com/steemit/@donkeypong/announcing-project-curie-bringing-rewards-and-recognition-to-steemit-s-undiscovered-and-emerging-authors "Only original content. Articles, poetry, photography, videos, recipes, etc." There are billions of times more content being produced online that one can consume, 99.99% of this content is made available for free and 99% of this content is being produced for free. The concept of incentivizing the creation of completely original content solely for being consumed on steemit.com (a still half-assed UI) was a bad idea, yet Ned, Bernie and bunch of whales have put their SP behind this concept through guilds. I have no idea to what extent the people at the top of this platform are clueless about content marketing but I am very scared about my investment if it continues anywhere near that path.
author | transisto |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t121553729z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://steemit.com/steemit/@donkeypong/announcing-project-curie-bringing-rewards-and-recognition-to-steemit-s-undiscovered-and-emerging-authors"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 12:15:54 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 13:10:39 |
depth | 1 |
children | 5 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.361 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.120 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,887 |
author_reputation | 330,357,940,720,833 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,649,114 |
net_rshares | 7,165,971,616,558 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 3,116,478,676,682 | 10% | ||
abcd | 0 | 409,427,884 | 10% | ||
escrow | 0 | 71,582,221 | 10% | ||
stellabelle | 0 | 1,804,455,907,375 | 100% | ||
transisto | 0 | 2,216,822,015,796 | 19% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 15,350,506,460 | 100% | ||
edje | 0 | 12,383,500,140 | 100% |
This is a very, very small community in its nascent stage, so it's only natural that a vast majority of content is mediocre. There's no one "guilds". There can be guilds of various kinds. It simply means a collaborative curation effort. I would love to see collaborative curation focusing on non-original, engaging content. If there's a Curie focusing on original content, there needs to be guilds that focus on non-original content. That the community hasn't bothered in over 6 months makes me fear that maybe people are just interested in original content on Steemit... Yes, the content may be mostly mediocre, but it's the best Steemit can do right now. Since you seem so strongly against original content and you are on of the top investors, I'd encourage you to take the initiative and promote curation of non-original content etc. I'm doing my bit by voting on such content, but of course, we need like whales like yourself to support such initiatives to have any impact. All the best.
author | liberosist |
---|---|
permlink | re-transisto-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170306t114232674z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-06 11:42:36 |
last_update | 2017-03-06 11:42:36 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.412 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.470 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 993 |
author_reputation | 177,167,275,265,899 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,656,442 |
net_rshares | 29,321,356,719,108 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,303,545,316,546 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,173,382,279 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 536,879,149 | 100% | ||
remlaps | 0 | 14,101,141,134 | 100% |
> The content upvoted by these guilds is, by internet standard, garbage. They are often the kind of posts that one wouldn't bother posting on their own facebook feed. Yet this "100% original content" get created for the sole purpose of being posted on steem. > > Curie has a mission to encourage people who fail. People who manage to fail repetitively but show perseverance get the equivalent of a welfare handout. In a vibrant market, I would agree with this, but we're not there yet. There aren't enough people here to determine what success or failure really means, so voters and guilds need to make judgement calls about what will attract people who are off-platform and don't have the ability to vote for themselves. Right now, I think that new visitors need to see some, "I can do that" content, and authors need to be encouraged to post about topics other than proposed adjustments to the curation rewards curve and flagging. I agree totally about the focus on original and substantive content. Even busy.org can't really be like traditional social media, because they share the blockchain with steemit and posts there are probably still going to get flagged by people on steemit for "link spam." It really smothers organic behavior. Of all changes in hf17, I'm most encouraged by the elimination of the penalty for more than 4 post per day.
author | remlaps |
---|---|
permlink | re-transisto-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t210829534z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 21:08:30 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 21:09:15 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.584 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.528 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 1,358 |
author_reputation | 33,149,047,814,372 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,609 |
net_rshares | 29,924,805,480,414 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
abit | 0 | 29,920,975,295,125 | 100% | ||
abcd | 0 | 3,275,423,073 | 100% | ||
escrow | 0 | 554,762,216 | 100% |
>. It would certainly be a good idea to consider reducing it to something like 10% or 5% This wouldn't remove any issues caused by curation rewards.
author | snowflake |
---|---|
permlink | re-transisto-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t194510700z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 19:45:12 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 19:45:12 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 149 |
author_reputation | 33,312,252,512,655 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,652,016 |
net_rshares | 0 |
I would reduce the incentive for people to delegate their SP onto guilds for the content reward. I'm not saying it would remove all issues I mean it would reduce it over time.
author | transisto |
---|---|
permlink | re-snowflake-re-transisto-re-snowflake-a-case-for-eliminating-curation-rewards-20170305t231846759z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
created | 2017-03-05 23:18:45 |
last_update | 2017-03-05 23:18:45 |
depth | 3 |
children | 1 |
last_payout | 2017-04-06 03:28:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 175 |
author_reputation | 330,357,940,720,833 |
root_title | "A case for eliminating curation rewards" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 2,653,409 |
net_rshares | 0 |