RE: Now you can see the numbers.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
If everybody writes less and curates more, wouldn't that mean that the people still writing earn a lot more than before? Slicing the same pie fewer ways, as it were...
Kind of sounds like it might result in low-quality poor-performance posts being reduced and higher quality high-performance posts continuing. Tell me again how quality improvements are a bad result?
I'm against the overall package of changes, but 50/50 is the best piece of the package, and the one getting all the negative attention.
0
0
0.000
No...because the people (like me) who think it's inherently WRONG to allow people to take more money from our hard work...will leave.
Leaving more people who say "wo cares about principle!!! I'll leave my trash post in thr mix and get more "
And when whales vote... Do they get more or less money for upvoting trash or quality content?
Hmmm?
I'll wait... Lol
EXACTLY . No difference. So where is THEIR incentive to CURATE more quality work???? They can vote on trash, drop a $200 upvote an get nearly $100 back.
And what are we doing about that? Downvote wars are the solution.
What newbie do you know that is gonna step into that? So that a whale can downvote them back and take away the 3 cents they are earning???
Quality improvements are not a bad thing. This proposal is not gonna force quality improvements.
It's going to.... Let me say it again...
Take money from the authors and out it directly into the wallets of large accounts.
Why...oh why... Do we not want to accept that this is....IN FACT....what is happening.
Oh..cuz quality improvements sounds so much better than that.
50/50 is getting all.the negative attention because it's an awful way to treat people.
Work harder, and we will take a bigger cut.
But... Investors will be happy. And top witnesses.
Blech. Gross.
Posted using Partiko Android
I may have missed the point where creators are entitled to a share of the inflation tax levied on stakeholders. The move to 50/50 isn't a tax on creators, it's a change in distribution of the existing tax on curators. A change that could improve the incentives to curate quality content. A change that might result in a redistribution from entitle shit-content producers to actual quality-content producers.
Remember that 50% of $2 is a little more than 75% of $1.
No one said anything about entitled.
We are accustomed to a certain standard that is now being changed in favor of large accounts.
Is anyone still honestly denying this??????
Just stop
Stop with the smoke and mirrors. It's so condescending.
The people voting on this are the people set to make the most money. It's a conflict of interest.
But they get to double their money for doing absolutely nothing. Annnnnnd ding ding ding...seek out more investors who can do the very same thing!!!
Once again....haejin is the absolute poster child for the argument against what you're proposing. Anyone who wants to upvote trash posts and make 50% curation on that can do exactly that. And NO little newbie is gonna flag that and get retribution and lose more money.
They fear it. And they cling to their very small (becoming smaller cuz more goes to fat wallets) payouts cuz it's all.they have.
Go ahead and take the focus off that. I'll wait.
Posted using Partiko Android
Inherently deserving of 75% author rewards because it takes more effort to type a few words and click 'post' than it takes to click upvote.
Agreed... lets stop the smoke and mirrors. I don't think that any author legitimately wants to get only one upvote. So let's get rid of the smoke and mirrors and break down the numbers you showed by number of posts. How much curation per post did each 'winning' account earn? How much author reward per post did each 'losing' account earn?
But the core of the matter is you and I have different values. You think that value comes from creation, and under-rewarding creation is an affront. I think that value comes from exchange, and a move to 50/50 will encourage exchange (and therefor value creation).
There is no middle ground when the disagreement is at such a fundamental level.
so I will step of your page now and leave you in peaceful misery.
"Type a few words and click post."
Ummmm
Wow.
I would really love to share your view on content creation with all my content creator friends who simply type a few words and click post.
I can see why you value content creation so little now.
I also value interaction...which is why I chose to post my book on Steemit rather than publish it.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with one vote .not sure who told you authors want one vote.
Go back and read the posts and see the points I made.or not. Everyone else seems to see.exactly who is voting and exactly who is fattening their wallets.
I shall also leave you, but in peace.
Posted using Partiko Android
I'd like to apologize for being harsh with you. While we disagree about 50/50, we are in agreement that the EIP is a potential disaster.
I've been advised by @improv (correctly, I think) that arguing about why the part I like is good is counter-productive when we are ultimately allies in the bigger picture ...
With CLRC and downvote pools wreaking havoc, 50/50 will likely prove to be irrelevant, and time spent defending it will have been misplaced.
I am very concerned about the role downvote pools will play as whales get creative about how to monetize that. At a minimum, I foresee anonymized downvoting (via encrypted bids) that will be much cheaper than upvotes.
As a worst case scenario, I foresee bid-bots running protection rackets (all posts above X value get downvoted unless they have paid votes from the bid-bot).
The only protection against abusive downvoting from whales is other whales stepping in... and the track record for long-term thinking from whales is not exemplary.
@josephsavage
Take a look at Haejin's Posts.
Literally 3 words at best, why would I not simply CURATE his posts from here on out, instead of real content creation? this teaches me it's worth more to simply CURATE large reward low value posts
and why shouldn't you? If you curate, it's with your stake to do with as you please.
The ratio of curators (content consumers) to content creators on Steem is very abnormal because content creators are disproportionately rewarded. But that results in a low-price equilibrium where nobody earns as much as they should. Giving curators back more of their own stake ('Come earn money curating quality content') for being effective curators will improve the amount of organic curation taking place.
I oppose the EIP because there are serious issues with downvote pools and the new rewards curve, but 50/50 is the best part of the proposal. If we could have just 50/50 and SPS I would be a strong advocate for the HF21.... because it would almost certainly result in a rising STEEM price (even relative to bitcoin).
So, rather than make posts, I stop being a content creator and only curate?
What happens if we multiply that by thousands of creators and authors?
what's left to curate?
Each user will make their own judgment call about whether to continue as a content creator. It won't be everyone, and if enough organic curation remains then the remaining content creators may do better than they were before.
My concerns are more about the impact of CLRC (convergent linear rewards curve) and downvote pools. Those I think will be devastating impact and make change to 50/50 totally irrelevant in the broad scheme of things.
the 2 or so free downvotes will have ZERO effect.
What user with a rep of 45 or 50 is going to downvote a user with 100,000 SP and a rep of 70?
Exactly right. Economic costs are gone, social costs remain... But social costs are zero for accounts with no social standing to lose.
The upcoming downvote was will likely be devastating and their impact will have a massive impact.
I'm told by dependable sources that at least 10 million SP will be brought into downvote action. It's not about the tiny accounts, but the mighty and rich.