RE: Sad, but not yet defeated.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Obviously this is a complicated situation with many parameters in the equations which all have knock-on effects which are hard to predict the outcome of accurately. For every argument here I can see a counter argument and there are valid points to be made on both sides. I see flexibility being the solution here - which could mean having the payout split created dynamically from the settings of individual witnesses, as suggested here already by @josephsavage - or it could involve the introduction of Steem Communities as was basically promised way too long ago and which have not yet surfaced. Communities can support a variety of independent settings, such as a difference in split of curator/author rewards - so once those go live, in theory, the default split becomes less significant.
I can appreciate the concern that big stakeholders will be better rewarded through upvoting others, however, here's what I see as being the argument in support of that outcome:
Steem is not an attractive investment compared to many other tokens, primarily because it's value continually drops due to inflation. From that perspective, Steem is like a leaky sieve from the perspective of investment. It is only viable if you either expect it to explode and compete with Facebook et al - or if you intend to be active on the network and make many of your own posts. Since there is only so much time in the day and so many things to post about, long term investors are pretty much forced to either continually make pointless posts to not lose the value of their investment or just pull out. This means that we see lots of shoddy posts at the top of the lists and it is discouraging to most users - plus totally invalidates the entire proof of brain mechanism that underpins the entire Steem concept. So.. by giving more rewards to curators, long term investor's lives are made a bit easier. You can always say that these people can just leave and we will only then have people who are here for the content, which is fine, but plenty will not leave and if they do - in enough numbers - the price of Steem drops even more.
It's fine to say that Authors can't afford to make content when they don't get nice payouts - but huge numbers of people (including me) have been making content totally for free for over a decade... So while, as an author, I have empathy for that position, the reality is that something is better than nothing.
For me, the bots are a bigger problem than the whales as they totally depersonalise and invalidate the underlying mechanism of post valuation. They remove the competitive aspect that has people battling to be the 'best brain' .. And so, much of the excitement of Steem is gone as a result of their use. If increasing the curation payout has an effect of chilling support for bots then that is a very good thing - though it remains to be seen if they will.
Personally, I am open for experiments - so I'm open to seeing what effects a split change has, it can always be changed back again. I personally would have gone for 66.6%/33.3% (or similar) as a middle ground.
I have said almost since the beginning that Steem is not being evolved quickly enough and I imagine that it is quite likely that we will see another team take over from Steemit Inc. in the next year or so - maybe the Steem Engine team.
I believe that CLRC will make purchased votes even more popular, by making it 'essential' to bid up to 16 STEEM and shift your posts onto the mostly linear part of the curve. This could be partially offset by downvote pools, but there has never been wide-spread established consensus that bid-bot content should be downvoted, and there are social costs to downvoting against consensus, so I'm not optimistic here.
I have provided a couple of possible solutions to the bid bots before - including changes to front ends so that users can remove the effect of bots from their experience and also a possibility of having Steemit inc. use their vote power to create 'official' vote selling, where the cost of the vote goes into the reward pool or is burned. I think these are better alternatives than adjusting curation/author splits - but what happens in the real world is not always in line with expectations!
Ive got an idea.
why don't investors invest.
why don't curators curate.
the problem is - investors are seeing a quick way to make a buck by putting up any old post and self-voting (or - having a fellow whale vote) THAT is not curation. THAT is skimming off the top and HURTING the blockchain.
Why don't we differentiate between investors and curators. they are in fact NOT the same.
An investor would be better served to STOP taking funds inapprorpriately and simple DELEGATING their massive power to places like Curie. who actually DO curate.
That way - the people who want to spend TIME on here making it better - can do so.
and the people that are here to make money - can NOT bother spending time here (hurting it!!!) and TRUST their power to entities that will actually MAKE them money the right way (and... lo and behold - help PROTECT their investment by making the whole place grow!!!)
and your "something is better than nothing" is incorrect. You have chosen to give your content away for free - and that is your own choice on your blog. You do still have the option of doing that here too. You can always decline payout.
The point is - just because you have given it away for free - DOES NOT MEAN that it isn't worth more.
The DRAW to Steemit was not just "hey we are another blog that you can post your stuff on" The draw to Steemit was - we are that - PLUS you can earn money! Look at all the ads for Steemit made by Steemians. THATS the first thing they push. that you can EARN.
so we can't now go... oh.. well, gee. I mean - I guess we can go back to giving it away for less and less - cuz, well - they're gonna change the rules on us.
The people who came here with money as part of the equation CANNOT HELP but look at a 42% (not 33 - but actually 42 with the WHOLE hardfork proposal) salary cut as a very serious attack on content creators.
not just an attack - but a bonus for INVESTORS.
I'm also open to experiments (70/30 can give us a good, safe starting point!) - but not ones where the big guys have nothing to lose , and we screw all the little guys in the process. That's shooting ourselves in the foot. again. and again. and again. and again.
tired of it, anyone else???
p.s. Steem will continue to not be an attractive investment if everyone leaves.
Well, they both invest their resources into the platform, whether that be time or money. They are both vested in seeing returns too. My understanding is that part of the intention of increasing curation rewards is to increase the chance that investors will curate.
They would only be financially motivated to do that if curation rewards are significantly higher than they are, I think.
Generally, from what I have seen, many of the 'investors' are not really behind the success of the platform from an ideological perspective or even a geeky tech perspective - they are generally interested in gains, short term if possible. I agree that investors should be thinking longer term - HOWEVER, if the development of the platform doesn't shore up their belief in it's long term viability, they will be thinking short term only.
Sure, yes - but something is still better than nothing.
There is nothing at all to earn without investors providing that money - that's just how it works. There needs to be a balance and since there is no Steem without investment, arguably the investors need to be given higher priority than the authors in some way. I didn't think like this at all when I joined here, but once I understood how the maths works a bit better this became undeniable. Authors will always be here as long as they can get paid - which they will do, as long as investors are here. If another platform figures out how to pay authors and attract investors better, then people will go there, so far I haven't seen that happen - probably partially because it's not a simple goal to achieve by any stretch of the imagination.
As far as the issue of the large stake holders having an advantage - they always have done - it has never been any different. The aim then needs to be to find ways to shift things around so that that inherent imbalance doesn't totally break proof of brain - which it has so far.
You will do fine on the new proposal. You have no problems with accepting anything they give because you see anything as a bonus. Thats what they want you believe - and - it's worked. I don't have a problem at all with you holding this mentality. I just value my work more.
I think that if investors have come here thinking that they have a sure investment on their hands.... they came in with the wrong mentality.
Investors invest money.
Curators invest time.
when you have an investor that is investing their time to properly curate - then you can call him/her a curator. When you have an investor that is self-voting their own trash post just to make money - that is not curation. that is breaking down the foundation of the system that they want to make money on.
The large stake holders do have an advantage - and that has always been the case.
Now you - are in essence - saying - "give more of my rewards to them to make them happy. Not just my rewards - give more of EVERYONE'S rewards to make them happy."
ok - i mean. If steemit can find enough people like you to stay and be happy with that - great - you're happy making less - they're happy making more - and you're actually thankful for the opportunity to give more.
You are exactly the type of Steemian that they hope will stay. And if there are enough of you that will give up your rewards to make the investors happy - this will be the most brilliant plan ever.
Not much else to say to that mindset LOL except... good luck to you! :)
You are skipping over the mathematical reality here. There is nothing to give anyone without the presence of 'investors', period. If a service on Steem doesn't bring in investors then it is basically just something that causes the value of Steem to drop - there is no way around that. This is part of the understanding behind @oracle-d for example and why @ned stated that he wants more platforms to think in that way (and why Oracle D has a 2 million delegation).
Erm.. I don't really believe anything - I am speaking from the experience of 12+ years of content creation. Sure, I am here to receive rewards and I am also here because the system is uncensored (relatively). I am currently of the understanding that I stand to earn more and the platform stands to grow more as a result of the price of Steem going up, which could possibly be more likely to occur if curation payouts are increased. Maybe not, I don't know for sure. I am not in some kind of battle here - this is all an experiment. My own content is of the kind that is intended to help the world - I don't really need to be paid for it, but I do appreciate when I am.
Sure, but they are going to do whatever they can to maximise their returns.
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that they will find ways to extract the money regardless of the split of rewards.
If I make less money then I could do more curation. Do I have time for that? Not really at the moment. However, if curation does become as much of a rewarding process as authoring, then maybe I would make more time for it - which should really help the platform grow.
you cannot make up the loss in curation rewards. I've already shown that.
you're missing the point.
investors invest in an idea based on risk and potential.
I see your new prototype. You ask me for $5000. I say - that's a good deal! I'll agree to $5000 for a 10% stake in the business.
2 years down the line - i don't like the deal anymore. You're not making money fast enough. Sorry - I want a 25% stake in the business so I can start making my money faster.
It doesn't work that way.
And here - its different. We give investors the opportunity to make accounts and take from the platform.
They can essentially write posts and upvote them at 100% and continue to pull money from the platform and into their own accounts.
Do you know what kind of deterrent is in place for this?
We can all downvote their posts. LOLOLOLOL THAT is the solution. or... we can just hope reeeeeal hard that they stop!
cuz people are good deep down inside, right?
I do not need to be paid for my content either. I would prefer highly - if the pay that i have begun accustomed to - was not taken from me and given to orca/whale accounts.
this. does not. solve. any problem.
it encourages MORE investors to come and TAKE MORE from the system.
Why do people think that when we set up a situation to abuse the system - that "nice happy investors with good intentions" are coming in droves to support this system. They're going to come expecting what their friends told them was here. a way to make money quick.
That is another mathematical reality that you're failing to see. People who abuse the system by continuing to take from it because they aren't earning enough, will ruin the system.
that goes for whales - all the way down to plankton.
When you create a desperate situation, people act selfishly.
and that's why I don't want to be a part of it, in this form. Because things (i predict) are gonna get much worse. and we are already at 40 cents/ steem. Can't go down much further without breaking.
I have posted a few times on exactly the topic you claim I am not seeing. I have made the exact points you are making here - I did that over a year ago. However, I have since realised that there really is nothing to 'optimise' without the system being deliberately made attractive to investors. The mathematical reality is that the inflation process is where the rewards come from, in combination with the investor money. The inflation process means that investors will lose their money if they don't take action. It's up to them to decide whether they are best served by upvoting themselves or trying to get their money back another way.
I'm not really sure what you are suggesting as a solution here. Investors can take action to increase their rewards, whether it is through curation or authoring posts.
I'm saying.. they're making money and taking it out just like they accuse the little people of doing....but they do it too with greater consequence!
Perhaps this was one big grand experiment that was doomed to fail from the beginning because it requires people to be honest and vote quality instead of following money.
Support others and grow, instead of taking what is "theirs"
It doesn't really matter , does it.
You will stay.
I will go.
Life goes on 🙂
people were upset in my DM last night asking me to.please reconsider... But we know the truth... No one is that big of an influence to be missed for very long.
Another person will replace me and again... Life goes on
It would make me happy if this all worked out for the best. I'll say no more, except...
Thank you for spending the time to comment so fully!
I sense your frustration too. But I also sense that you have much more "grit" to stick it out.
Best wishes!!! 🙂
Posted using Partiko Android
The bottom line for me is that I will post online for no money because I have a mission to achieve. The decent payouts of the past that may possibly return are a motive to stay and built this platform. I am an engineer and from a technical standpoint I still see great potential here - it's just a question of how the challenges get solved (or not). Voice and EOS are the closest to a competitor I see at this point and they are ditching the anonymity and attempt at decentralisation... so.. for now I will keep supporting Steem.
Ultimately, if the continuation of life is one of the aims of a society, then I am tempted to apply your quote to the use of capitalism by society too. There's a reason why many anarchists view anarcho capitalism as the antithesis to actual anarchy. We shall see!
You are welcome. One thing is for sure, many here will continue to try to make this platform a place that you can always return to if you choose.
Wishing you well aswell!
That was a very sweet closing line! Thank you for that!
(P.s. i prefer when steem is low...I don't like high payouts when steem is high. I stack much more steem in a shorter period of time when steem is low. When steem is high.... People get significantly less steem for their payout value and the pressure is to sell before it crashes.)
Posted using Partiko Android
Love your brain. Me personally, I would have the author choose the curation applied to each post. A simple slider would be effective enough. Some people already decline rewards or hand them off to beneficiaries. 50/50 could be the default setting and people could alter it as they saw fit.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks! Yes, giving the option of a slider on each post could also be interesting - it would force authors to choose community or isolation to some extent. It's all an experiment!
I would consider that for sure.