RE: My Newsteem Economic Philosophy Freewrite
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Nice work on this post @joshman. Of all the various posts I have read on our post HF 21 / 22 "Steem world," this one was the most clearly written. At least, that is my perspective.
"In here" myself for nearly 1-½ years, if we accept the basic premise of your argument re: downvoting is great, here is what I extracted that stands out to me about the "rest of the story" ...
"... the result of a downvote is the return of those potential rewards to the commons where they may be claimed again. Hopefully by a deserving under-rewarded content creator."
... as perhaps something you may wish to write about in future posts. Why? I believe addressing the "hopefully" requires you (us) to address the other two features of our recent EIP changes. And how they "are working out" for us.
Wow, thanks! That's a glowing review if I've ever seen one. And I thought I was rambling!
Can you elaborate?
Sure @joshman. You've written about downvoting. That is 1 of the 3 EIP changes. What about the impact of the other 2?
While I read that these changes have been very positive, the number of Steemians with which I was regularly engaging has dropped. Many of them the "deserving under-rewarded content creators" to whom you were referring.
I have neither the time nor the data access to determine how widely the reward pool has been distributed, both pre- and post HF
21/ 22. Given how well thought out this post I was, I thought you might want to consider tackling writing about it.P.S. If interested in investing the time, here is a link to a post (look at some of the comments, as well) which I would cite as support for my statement about declining numbers ...
That's a good question about the actual distribution. I can say anecdotally, there are more eyeballs out there hunting for new content because of the financial incentive to do so. Seems like a data scientist would be able to measure reward flows over time. For example, the percentage of the pool that flows to certain rep or SP level users over a period of time, versus the flow of rewards being exchanged between high rep orcas and whales. Speaking for myself, I want to see less people with large wallets off in the corner exchanging votes, and more rewards going to smaller users. Unfortunately many of these people are so set in their ways, they cannot be reasoned with, so the only option is to send their rewards back to the pool through downvoting. This is of course controversial, as you can see from the downvoting of this particular post (all retaliation). Everything is of course on the blockchain, and you can see for yourself who out there is really trying to support the community versus enrich themselves. Steemworld and Steamocean both have tools to evaluate voting patterns.
Thank you for investing your time in this response @joshman. On this …
… we are in agreement. But …
… not sure I can agree with this, as in the “circles” in which I have always engaged the rewards seem to have dropped. In some “circles,” of course, this does not appear to be the case. Although, it leads to an impression the word “circles” has now taken on a different meaning …
It would sure be nice if there were a simple method, for anyone interested, to obtain global (blockchain wide …) “hard facts,” about the reward pool distribution. Then we would no longer just be speculating … I know @steemchiller is working on a “data mining” feature in SteemWorld. It will be very nice to see what that will be capable of providing, once available.
#sbi-skip
I didn't say there was enough eyeballs, I just meant there were more than before.
Some of those eyeballs are former bid bots and have serious steem power behind them. I have voted several posts from small blogs who later got a 'lottery vote' from one of these accounts. I am hoping that trend continues.