RE: Sad, but not yet defeated.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Why should curators make more? They are already making 25% on work that they did not create.
I don’t understand why this is such a contentious issue.
Authors currently receive 75% of the total post reward. That’s for one single person.
Curators receive a maximum of 25% of the total post reward. That’s divided between all of its curators, which often numbers in the hundreds - and in the future (potentially) could regularly be in the thousands.
Is it really so unfair for one user to receive 75% of rewards and hundreds or thousands of others to split the remaining 25%? Would it be so absurdly unfair for one person to receive 50% while the other hundreds or thousands split the other 50%?
Also - is it so ridiculously unfair to entice staking and reward stakeholders for the STEEM that they power up? To better incentivize and reward them for assuming additional risk? Is it so unfair to give authors a risk-free 50% split of any rewards they receive, thanks in large part to the people who have bought or held STEEM, powered it up, and upvoted the author’s content?
Where is this grotesque unfairness? And which group is actually being treated unfairly?
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this is where so many people are making their stand. Do we not want to entice more people to assume risk by purchasing STEEM and powering it up - or to at least stop dumping so much of it? Are we content with the unsustainable reward giveaways to anyone who shows up and posts the kind of stuff that can be and is found anywhere else on social media?
When are authors going to recognize that people buying STEEM and/or powering up are the ones who actually make it possible for these authors to cash out their blogging profits in order to “make a living?” When will authors stop vilifying risk-taking stakeholders for seeking profits while those same authors complain about their own risk-free profit potential?
There are other battles to fight and other more consequential protocol changes and actions/behavior that have affected both authors and curators here. Why don’t we address those issues instead of always arguing about how “bad” authors have it?
I've mentioned before...
When we go to the movies, we pay to be entertained. When we read books, we pay to enjoy a tale.
We do not get a cut of the profits. We don't wait at the ticket booth for a cut of the sales.
On Steemit, it's different. We DO reward the people who we entertain. It's the way to which we have become accustomed. Content creators were lured here with the hope of earning more here than other sites. Now that they're here, we want to deplete that and shame them into thinking they aren't worth it by calling them entitled, selfish and whiny for earning 30 cents on a post that might take 3 hours to create. Do authors deserve more than75% / less than 75%?
Honestly,
I have less concern about the amount that is changing for this proposal. I have more concern that the changes are going to be disproportionately spread over our population.
What is taken (42% of author rewards will be depleted if this proposal passes) will be up for grabs by curators. This would be awesome...if it was an opportunity to both make up for loss in author rewards and a proportionate benefit for curators. But we all know large stake holders will overwhelmingly benefit the most.
In essence, author rewards are going to be taken from content creators and scooped up by large accounts. Doubling 1 SPto 2 SP per month for small accounts will have very little effect on their wallets and the platform as a whole. Doubling 3000 SP to 6000SP per month..I think you see my point.
Small accounts do not have the stake to make up for the loss in author rewards. I've already shown this in previous posts. Specifically because large accounts take the lion's share of the curation rewards that are now being doubled.
Overall, small accounts will at least initially lose significantly while large accounts benefit significantly.
"Hope that it changes"... is great. But unpredictable.
and also... based on human behavior, that we once again "hope" will be for the good of one another.
We are taking more money from small accounts and honestly expect them to work harder, longer, and try to stand out...
While curators (specifically large accounts) get double for adding nothing to the mix. They will do the same thing on Tuesday that they did on Monday... But after HF21- they will make more.
Please dont say "then people can curate more". I've given my account as an example. But mine doesn't express how dire it is for people with smaller accounts than me. Even with mine...I was already curating twice as much as I should have, depleting my voting power and value of my vote... If I curated more, it wouldn't replace what I've lost.
Not only that, I've already shown that the people who are benefitting directly from this proposal are voting on thus while the majority of accounts are on the losing side.
That is the grotesque unfairness you are needing pointed out.
It is a glaring conflict of interest.
Back to curators, if they are entertained, enjoy our thoughts, participate in our contests, view our photos, watch our videos.... They upvote.
That is their appreciation/approval of the content.
And then they get a portion of the proceeds.
There activity is already rewarded
Witnesses work hard to make this platform work. We dont get a cut of their work. We benefit when they do their work well.
Content creators create content for themselves, for the community and for the benefit of the platform. We benefit when they do their work well. We also get a cut of their work as a bonus and a motivation to curate more.
To curate better? No. To curate for financial gain. That's the nature of steemit. Most people curate three ways. For friends, for unknown good content, or for financial gain.
You will never stop people from voting for their friends.
I believe that there will be less good content...why? Because people feel unappreciated and disposable.
The only thing that remains is curating for financial gain, and people are already trying to figure out ways to regain the rewards that are being lost and I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with good content. It has to do with self-voting and following big accounts, timed right on autovote.
How does that solve the issue?
Also, if a whale gives a 100% upvote for a trash post vs a quality post... What is their motivation in this proposal for upvoting quality vs trash?
What is their motivation in this proposal for voting for others instead of themselves?
The ones who have the most influence (and make the most curation rewards) have absolutely no motivation to use their votes for quality.
Actually... This proposal STILL allows for whales to abuse their votes if they want to.
And what is our recourse? Some free downvotes to disagree? Seriously? How many Plankton, minnows or dolphins do you know that want to go head to head with a whale and put a target on their back with a downvote?
Once again, the only policing that will happen will be on the smaller accounts, stirring up negativity and spiteful behavior.
"Thank you for that completely objective downvote. I appreciate your right to distribute the rewards away from my post. Have a wonderful day!"
That will not be heard on Steemit. Ever.
I appreciate that investors invested their money. Without them, this site would not be.
I appreciate that good content creators write things that entertain us. Without them, this site would not be.
I appreciate that good curators use their votes to lift good content. Without them, this site would not be.
No one is entitled to a disproportionate redistribution of benefits, or should be punished with a disproportionate redistribution of risk.
Spread it out evenly and you would have less of an argument from me.
If they took the 50/50 off this proposal for now, and made it a singular discussion.. and allowed for some compromise... I think that would be wise.
Hope that more fully explains this grotesque unfairness that you were asking to be revealed.
Investors (meaning anyone who has invested in steem) make money when steem makes money.
Instead of being so focused on just getting them more money, I would love to see us ALL be willing to take cuts that are proportionate to our class so that we can ALL enjoy the benefits of growing the platform.
*Wrote this on my phone...apologize for any inconsistency in my thoughts... I had to scroll around a little lolol
Thanks for reading and responding. We don't have to agree, but I appreciate the willingness to discuss.
(P.s. I don't think authors have it bad at all right now... I accepted what I made for what I loved to give.)
Sure. That's how movie theaters work. But this isn't a movie theater and the production studios, the actors, and the theater and its employees aren't allocated rewards from a finite and shared pool of resources on a blockchain created by the movie industry. So this isn't really a valid comparison.
Right. And when the blockchain was launched, they were lured here with the opportunity to earn 50% of the post rewards, just as stakeholders were lured with 50% of curation rewards and a hefty cut of over 100% annual inflation. But the protocols were changed for everyone. Now the rewards split is being changed back.
Content creators can still be lured here with the hope of earning more than on other sites, since most other sites still pay $0.00 for most of the content hosted on their sites. That hasn't and won't change due to the EIP.
This is not much of a concern at the blockchain level. Of course larger accounts will earn more in terms of STEEM. But the opportunity to earn in terms of percentage is exactly the same (and can actually favor smaller stakeholders that are above average curators). It doesn't matter if you're doubling from 1 to 2 SP, 100 to 200 SP, or 1000 to 2000 SP. If nothing else changes (which is actually unlikely and often ignored by everyone complaining about 50/50), every curator has the chance to double their earnings from simply curating content once HF21 is implemented.
That's right. But that's not the point of the protocol change.
Nobody is taking money from anyone. The way that the rewards are distributed is changing. And there are three components (actually four now) that will affect this, not just 50/50. Focusing on only one change and trying to extrapolate future behavior and rewards based on current behavior with current protocols isn't wise and is the root of most of the teeth gnashing going on around here.
Sure, that's the motivation for most people here. And it's exactly the motivation for authors: to post for financial gain. Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about? The amount of potential profits you might lose out on?
Again I ask: Why is it perfectly fine for authors to earn risk-free rewards and cash out their profits, but actual stakeholders who are assuming maximum risk on this platform must only contribute for a very small piece of the rewards pie - or must act against their own financial interests entirely?
Isn't this exactly what 50/50 does?
Stakeholders assume maximum risk for purchasing or holding STEEM, then powering it up to be used for influence on the blockchain. As a group, they are only able to receive a maximum of 25% of content rewards if they choose to only exert that influence by curating content. And this is pretty much the only direct ROI they have for staking. (Capital appreciation from speculation does not require them to stake their tokens and, in fact, is rarely seen with STEEM. Much of its history has seen downward price pressure and movement after some quick and very temporary spikes that occurred in the general crypto markets.)
Individual curators make much less than 25% of any given post reward. The content creators, on the other hand, as individuals, retain a full 75% of the post rewards. What you're saying is - those individual content creators and their rewards, at 75% of the total, are getting an "even" cut and should never have that changed, even as the system is crumbling around us...as new investment is practically non-existent and stakeholding remains under-incentivized.
What you're saying is - you'd rather see content creators receiving 75% of an annually inflated currency with not enough buyers to offset that inflation and dumping instead of seeing content creators receiving 50% of rewards in a system that entices more buyers (or just less dumpers) and could put needed upward price pressure on STEEM?
If we're talking about "classes" of users, then content creators are the single largest beneficiary in today's system - and it's not even close. In fact, content creators - as a "class" - receive more rewards than every other "class" combined. If you're looking for "proportionate cuts," then I'm not sure why you're so opposed to reducing that massive advantage.
What you're actually arguing is that content creators should not be treated fairly in terms of "classes" and "benefits." Your argument is that they ought to earn more at the expense of the other "classes" - including the very people who make it possible for content creators to "get paid" and "make a living" in the first place.
And I'm sorry, but content creators getting paid is actually a byproduct of the system, not the driving force behind it. STEEM would very likely have at least some kind of speculative investment regardless of whether or not anyone posted content to the blockchain. It is that speculative investment that gives the tokens monetary value and allows people to play the rewards-for-profit game as content creators and curating stakeholders.
Dangling a bigger carrot in front of buyers in order to entice them to buy or buy more, then stake those tokens and participate in the system (which benefits everyone) is not an unfair strategy. It helps grow the platform (and also contributes to upward price pressure of STEEM), which is something you say you want...but continue to argue against.
I don't think they'll have it bad with the new protocols. But I also think there's much more to fix that has killed the economics and the social atmosphere on this platform. The EIP is just a step in the right direction to help correct huge mistakes made in the past.
Which is exactly why I said - it isn't the same. Nowhere else does the consumer get to earn off of the creator's work. Here on Steemit, they already do. And you know what else? They dont' even have to prove that they actually read it. They can put someone on autovote (good quality or bad quality) and take a cut of the creator's work. So unlike the real world, where consumers purchase and enjoy entertainment and walk away, Here - they can actually take a cut of the creator's profits because that's whats allowed. Doesn't matter how long the creator worked on the piece. They are entitled to a portion of their profits by simply upvoting. It's unlike any other place. Right - so we agree.
That's your hope, and you feel confident enough to try. Not really sure what else to say.
i was going to respond to every point - but... I think it might be better to say this. I've read what you said and instead of going through this whole thing and quoting and refuting - here is the bottom line.
You believe in this, right? It's clear that you want content creators to make less and curators to make more - and that's what's happening. you win! lol
You believe that it will make this place better. You believe that creators will find joy in creating because although it's a cut, it's still more than other places - so you have room to take from here and give to there, and still make people feel valued across the board. Newbies will come and look at their post payouts and say - no matter what, this is more than I would have earned on facebook! ok - you believe that. lol I have witnessed many people saying exactly the opposite, because I deal with newbies ALL THE TIME, and that is NOT the general concensus.... but... you believe this will be the case. ok.
You love this place, and you think this hard fork is going to make it better.
You would like to convince me that this is the way, and I'm wrong, and I just don't see the forest through the trees.
You think that this will cure bad behavior, and chase away abuse, and all the people who are good and kind and fair will rise up and make steem great again.
What more would you like me to say except - "How wonderful if you are right."
I mean that with all sincerity. How wonderful if 3 months from now - 6 months from now - content creators and curators are flocking to be onboarded here and steem is mooning and everyone says - hooray! HF21 was our saving grace!
This may sound like Im being sarcastic but I can assure you - I am not. If I am wrong - and I leave - but my friends are still here - and stay - and succeed... I will be absolutely thrilled.
Thank you for one again leaving your thoughts on here - I'm sure that when people come to read the comment section, they'll be more educated because they'll try to understand your side more.
As for me, I do not agree. But that's ok. Lots of people can agree to disagree and leave in peace. The powers in charge have spoken. Steemit has agreed. HF21 will go on. People will read your comments and my comments and try to understand both sides and come to their own conclusion.
I can wish you the best and mean it from the fullness of my heart.
night :)
Somebody has been lying to you!
Yes, I think that there is a lot of this that shows in your comments due to the focus on 50/50 and not on the overall package of the EIP.
As a percentage of total content rewards, yes. But what you're talking about when you say "make less" is an assumption that nothing else will change. I simply believe that behavior will certainly change. We just don't know to what degree. We may very well see authors like yourself making more than you currently do, due to the protocol changes. You need to consider the changes as a whole, not in isolation and not predict future behavior and rewards distribution based on current protocols and behavior.
By the way...I'm working on a post right now to try to better explain that last point.
I'm also curious - do you support the SPS as it's proposed?
If you DONT love this place and believe in HF21 - you sure have a funny way of showing it! LOL
It's ok to love Steemit. I did too. It's ok to believe in change - You do.
People spend their time here because they believe it matters. I can't imagine someone spending the time you do (your post was massive) and not deeply caring about it. Seems like an odd way to show it.
I've made my peace with my decision, and I will be happy riding out the rest of my time posting chapters of Fireflies, saying thank you to the people who made this experience most meaningful to me, and when HF21 passes - saying my goodbyes. When I leave, I'll focus entirely on Spunkee Monkee, and find them a new home. Life goes on for all of us. It's all good.
Many people have left before me, and I will be no different than them. I think someone said with fewer content creators that would actually increase the amount of rewards to go around, and make people excited again. So - if their predictions are right... its not such a bad thing that people are leaving.
I hope that it all works out - and you should start writing the post now called "Told ya so, @dreemsteem!"
lol sorry - i just needed to end this with laughter. Really - I appreciate your willingness to explain HF21 in a way that tries to appeals to everyone. You want people to stay on the platform long enough to see the great changes you believe are coming. It makes perfect sense. But you can stop trying to convince me.
Just write me off as stubborn! :)
Well, before you go...
https://steemit.com/steem/@ats-david/the-economic-theory-of-hf21-s-eip
What's the harm in sticking around a little while longer to see what happens? Just think...if I'm completely wrong, you can make a big post about how dumb I am and tell everyone that ol' @ats-david, the lover of Steem, is just a big stupid cheerleader and Steem shill.
Wouldn't that be pretty damn ironic and funny?
calling people names isn't my style ;)
and hey...
cheerleaders are not stupid. this one had a full scholarship to university. lol
it wouldn't be funny at all if you were wrong. it would be sad. and exactly why i do not want to stick around. HF20 was terribly sad.
but let's leave this interchange on a high note.
I do believe you are developing a crush on me - since you can't leave my post alone. 😏 Oh Chuuuuuuck. You're holding my hand, Chuck! You sly dog.
lol shoo. go to bed. goodnight. skedaddle. gyet! go on! no more talkie. close your peekers and go sheepie.
LOL goodnight Sir David.