RE: Perhaps we need to speak as one?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I don't know... I haven't completely been following this, but I do in principle agree with reward structure change (this might come back and bite me later!).
My biggest problem with Steem at the moment is the fact that there is no closing of the economic loop. What is the benefit in buying and holding Steem? At present, generally very little other than on chain prestige. This is not really a sustainable economy then, if the rational choice is to sell rather than buy.
Having a larger curation reward might encourage one to have a larger SP to collect more of the stake (and the sps will help develop dapps that encourage the purchase of Steem).
I know that it feels bad that authors will initially lose out, but at the moment, the rational choice is to collect Steem to sell... Not to hold and not to buy.
Perhaps someone can suggest to me otherwise!
Well, they hoped that with HF20 - with the limited resource credits - it would force people to pay to play, and we see how well that worked out.
I'm writing a post now to show you exactly how it will affect you. I think numbers are easy to understand when it's right in front of you. But... we'll see.
I also believe that the amount of steem that you'll need to buy and hold in order to make the curation rewards beneficial.... is negligible. If that's the motivation for you to hold steem, I think you're going to be disappointed in your return.
It's not just about authors initially losing out. If everyone was losing, and it was balanced over the whole community - then - we could all take the hit together.
But I think you're going to see that when the rewards are coming from authors - they are not getting dispersed equally over the community. HUGE portions are going into the pockets of curators who ALREADY have a large portion of the curation rewards at 75/25
I'll tag you in the next post. we'll see if we can get a discussion going.. and if I'm wrong - I'd love to be corrected ;)
No, I agree that even with these changes that curation rewards are going to be pitiful for an account my size. And I know full well that the amount of Steem that I would need to buy to make it worthwhile would be tremendous...
Hoeve, if this reward distribution was attached to a better way of distributing the curation part (levelling out the SP playing field) it could be interesting... On the other hand, that is also just ripe for abuse... On the other hand, perhaps that is what down vote pool is for...
On the last hand, I'm not really sure how it will be... It is quite different, but I don't think any side has any idea how it will play out in the long term. There are many convincing stories, but all of them have hefty assumptions.
Tag me, I'm curious. But I'll just put it out, I'm a fence sitter on this one... But my point about there needing to be a reason to hold Steem still bothers me, but perhaps this isn't the solution..
not just an account your size.... but its taking from accounts your size and GIVING to large accounts.
that's the biggest problem.
@bengy
I think that the value of Steem, the role of dapps and the quality of content are somewhat different things. I also think that the motivations for joining and staying and/or leaving bear thinking about. I saw a recent post from @aggroed (https://steemit.com/witness/@aggroed/is-hf21-a-trap) in which he argues the necessity for HF21 and at the same time extols the virtues of communities.
I suspect that those of us who have blogged for years for the love of it, as opposed to a monetary return, and who cannot invest in Steem, have a completely different perspective. I came in the hopes of using sweat equity to build up a head of Steem. I was a late adopter and it didn't work for me. Others, whose currencies have even less value than the ZAR, can, and do use sweat equity. However, where that is not possible, why do we stay?
Because of the community.
Because of the promise of monetisation. Ultimately.
HF21, after the damage of HF20, I have to view with jaundice. MHO.
Agreed, community is what keeps many around.. And that is an important part, but we can't expect everyone to have that be enough. There does need to be real economic value in Steem if only to pay for the servers that host the content and the computers and electricity of the witnesses to secure and validate the chain.
@bengy
There is an additional element: Steemit would not function if it were not for the people on the blockchain. There needs to be some return for them and if I were to view my engagement here from the perspective of ROI - and purely in economic terms - and I include sweat equity because in my line of business, time is money - I should have dumped it a long time ago.
Why do I stay, in addition to the community? Well some of that has to do with the dapps that I use and which make it seamless to post to the blockchain and which offer me a value-add. What I will add, which is as important is that I was blogging/microblogging from those platforms before Steemit, so its part of that which keeps me here.
One last point: If the propsect of realising returns for the sweat equity does not improve and I'm offered other opportunities that are commensurate with what it's worth, well, that, too is a no brainer. I'm gone. I'll get @jaynie's boot and probably end up off the platform.
Fiona
and now that these changes will decrease the economic value for most small-medium sized accounts.... lol
it really doesn't make sense.
If steem needed money to keep running and had to take a little from everyone in proportion to their size... go for it
but the money that is being taken from authors is not going back into the pool evenly distributed.
curation rewards are stake based.
for the large account that gives a huge upvote - and then gets curation back? they're getting back double.
for the small account that gives their "huge" upvote - (100% for them, but still only .01) their curation rewards are being doubled... from what? 0.001 to 0.002?
but the huge accounts - THEIR curation rewards are being doubled too. from $2.00 to $4.00??? or much more???
it doesn't seem very fair to me.
Yes, definitely in the short term the effect is to decrease the non-big accounts get. However, it does give some reason (albeit small at the moment) to use the author earnings to power up rather than to sell.
Anyway, I only know that economies are much more complex and non-linear systems than what many expect. I only know that there will be unexpected results, quite probably not the ones we expect... And that I just have no idea!
... Which does lead me to wonder why an economist or two isn't consulted about these economic changes? It appears that in the crypto space (not just Steem) we fall into the trap that there are easy and simplistic cause and effect...but that is off topic, just interesting (and not a comment on you, just digressing...).
take a look at the new post... im about to tag you in it.
;)
take a look at that chart @bengy.... i knew it would be skewed in favor of big accounts before we made it. but now? its pretty blatant. and i hope that this part of the proposal gets tossed in the garbage. fast.