Hard Fork 21: A Case For the 50/50 Curation Reward Model

avatar
(Edited)

It's no longer news that hard fork 21 is underway on the Steem blockchain. As you probably know, with every hard fork comes some key changes.

A fine post by @timcliff have done justice to the proposed updates that HF21 will bring. I will advise that you find time to read those posts.

While it is left for the witnesses to either vote in favour or against many of the proposed changes, today I'll be discussing what seems like a radical change - the 50/50 curation model.

This model is a subset of the Economic Improvement Proposal. It will see a radical adjustment in the post payout as we presently know it.

Under the current regime, the author gets 75% of the payouts on posts while the curators get to share the remaining 25% depending on their voting weights.

However, the proposed 50/50 model, which has already been introduced on https://palnet.io, will give curators equal earning power as the author. Under this regime, the author will earn 50% of the payouts on posts while the curators will have to share the remaining 50% - of course, depending on the voting powers of the curators.

The proposal above, frankly, is the most controversial update of the forthcoming hard fork. And it has been received with great resistance in many quarters.

Majority of those who kick against the proposal have argued that the model will give more power to the whales and take away reward from the authors who add value to this blockchain.

Another argument that has been put forward is that a 50/50 curation model may end up demoralizing authors, quenching their interest in Steem and moving their blogging activities to other rival blockchains.

A Different Approach to the Matter

Personally, I agree that a 50/50 curation model will indeed give more powers to the whales because they will earn more. However, this is a deserved power, deserved because the whales are investors. And for things to progress on here, the investors ought to get reasonable returns on their investments.

One important point we often ignore here is that neither Steem, Steemit nor any other dapp on here can exist without dedicated investors, investors who have a long term perspective. And who are such kind of investors? They are those who hold Steem power.

Therefore, as a way of providing incentives to SP holders, a 50/50 curation model is necessary. If investors can earn more from holding Steem, it is likely that more investors will come into the scene. And that could do some magic to the price of Steem in the long run.

Also, it is less likely that content creators will leave Steem because their rewards have been slashed. For now, there is no known competitor of Steem. With the whole hype about Voice, it is still not an alternative to Steemit yet.

Still on the above point, there is a strong likelihood that if author rewards are cut while curator rewards are increased, curators will likely vote more on posts to earn more reward. Of course, all parties (both curators and authors) will benefit from the proposed 50/50 economic model.

Finally, I believe that the proposed model will reduce, if not eliminate, the use of bid bots - which many have rightly pointed out as the major problem confronting engagement on this ecosystem. If the 50/50 model pulls through, any Steem sent to bid bots can NEVER be profitable. We may see many bid bot owners closing shop in the coming days.

Until I come your way again, I wish you a FULL STEEM AHEAD.

SUPPORT CORNER

Kindly follow the peerless vocabulary lessons presented by @majes.tytyty, and get rewarded with upvotes for your participation.

          Vocab-Ability – "Introduction to Vocab-Ability"  

Are you a minnow and you're already thinking of giving up on Steemit? Please don't quit. Kindly follow @Steemitcentral and use the steemitcentral tag in your posts to get some upvotes.

IMG-20180606-WA0005.jpg


I am @gandhibaba, the young man who goes about carrying his magical pen, not his gun, in his pockets.

Gandhi banner (925px, 25fps).gif

Gif courtesy of @artzanolino


Thanks for visiting my blog. I appreciate your precious time.



0
0
0.000
404 comments
avatar

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @gandhibaba and everyone reading this comment
line2.png

First of all: great choice of topic buddy. This is definetly very disturbing and important publication.

Since I've read post by @timcliff I couldn't stop thinking about consequences of this vital change. After all moving from "75/25" reward model to "50/50" is a huge deal.

I fully understand, that main idea behind such a change is to reduce abuse of some authors who self-upvote themselfs. But can it really be fixed ? I hardly doubt so.

Let's say that I self-upvote my own content. After HF21 I will receive less as an author from such an upvote. But it will be compensated with receiving more as curator.

Under this regime, the author will earn 50% of the payouts on posts while the curators will have to share the remaining 50%

In other words: content creators doing actual work will have it even harder to be rewarded. In order to get any rewards they need to create content.

At the same time curators do not need to do any work. After all they can switch on auto-upvotes and simply enjoy growing twice as fast. Basically we're moving away from rewarding those who create content or are authors of quality comments. Steemit will reward those people less.

My impression is that Steemit is turning into ponzi scheme. Investors will be rewarded for doing really nothing, but pretty much for holding their STEEM (and auto-upvoting any kind of content).

I would love someone to explain to me that I'm wrong and I do not see bigger picture.

BitBots and HF21

Now one more question that is on my head: would HF21 help or destroy bidbots? Most likely demand for their services will still be there and at the same time bidbots will be growing twice as fast as they do right now (after all curation rewards will be doubled).

Am I wrong? I'm badly trying to figure out how HF21 can help but all I can see is "huge opportunities for abuse" of Steemit platform.

IMPORTANT: I read and upvote all interesting comments.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think in some points you are wrong.

One main stuff both of you forgot. That even the smaller accounts will grow faster. With this the currators have a positive experience and hope more and more currators will come so basicly more people will hold steem power. Which is good for all of us.

Content creators: Many of the creators they use bots that is not a secret. Hopefully with these changes there will be less bid bot abusers.
I dont think so that it will worth to buy votes if we have 50/50.
Also it will not worth that much to sell votes i think with these changes.

So actually what i am waiting it is more human interaction in the future do to these changes.

But we will see in action how it will goes.

Personaly i am happy at the moment for these changes.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @gabbynhice

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Even if we're having different view on some of those points. I appreciate your time.

That even the smaller accounts will grow faster.

Indeed Im failing to learn how smaller accounts will grow faster. Some people will definetly lose their reasons to create content. So as an author each one of them will grow slower.

I do fully agree that they will receive more SP for upvoting content. But sending message to masses, that hitting 10 times upvote button (which may take seconds) will bring them as much (or more) rewards than creating content is a short term thinking.

Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

I dont think so that it will worth to buy votes if we have 50/50.

Definetly current algorythms behind bots will have to change. But bots will be growing twice as fast. And they may change ways of buying votes, but it's just playing around with numbers.

Personaly i am happy at the moment for these changes.

I wish to share your positive approach.

Yours

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear Piotr, i agree 100% with you, this implementation is WTFBS!!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Agreed. All these people should be spending their time on DAPPs or SMTs or at the very least on marketing. These changes are starting to look like market regulations and thing with regulation is people always find a way around it.

These changes will work as well as how DRM worked for video games. I'll give it 2 weeks before everyone adjust and everything is back to the usual way. Make some Goddamn software for me!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @d-zero

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

First off all, we need newcomers for Steemit to grow up and up; and for the newcomers, they need to get Steem of their works on Steemit to stay here. I think the new 50/50 reward model will only be useful for old members and Steemit will be more circulated among them than now.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @videoaddiction

First off all, we need newcomers for Steemit to grow up and up;

Indeed. And new users will have even less reasons to create quality content :(

It seem that we're having very similar view on that particular issue. Thx for sharing.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I totally agree with you that "content creators doing actual work will have it even harder to be rewarded. In order to get any rewards they need to create content." So current rate is better in my opinion. Thank you for your valuable assessment

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for sharing your opinion @huseyinunozkan16

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was not a fan of this change until I really spent some time to think about what it will do here. So let me go over what I think it will do an why I am now okay with the idea.

I myself use the TIPU service. I don't buy big votes I use it as a way to power up my account. It might seem silly but I saw no reason to turn sbd into steem and power up when I could send the SBD to TIPU get a vote get a token to earn back payments and be able to repeat pretty much forever. As each post always gets back some funds in SBD. I am not sure if people approve of growing my account that way but it pushed me past 2k SP in a little over a year and I only bought maybe 300. What this change will do to TIPU is make it much harder to use. Same with all bots. To stay open they will need to give you 201% your payment or you lose ROI. Sometimes people are okay to lose ROI but they are promoting a post with real content or ideas. I feel those people will still use a bid bot at as low as 190%. Still, this means the bots will get way smaller payments and be able to give out way fewer votes. The adjust they can man is to offer to pay you out part of the curation but that is harder. As half of it will become SP they will be forced to wait for power-downs to send payouts. All of it will be much harder to manage so I feel more of the bots will just quit.

Now for the 50/50 for normal users. Here is what it is going to do to me. I have over 2000 SP but I only vote with a 1000 SP vote. Why because it is way more profitable to delegated my steem power away to services. Some of mine I give away to support friends but a good 800 is out there earning. But after 50/50 I would stop doing that. If I get half my vote back I want my vote to be as big as possible. This to me is a good thing.

I will also point out that the people who are here just for themselves buy votes for-profit and voting each other will still try to do that stuff. But if they join a curation trail and just collect at least they won't be powering up silly posts. We shouldn't see as many two line post earning 200 dollars. Instead, we will see curation bots running around powering up what I hope is good content. I hope this helps a bit for you to see what I see happening. Let junk post bid up means more quality stuff makes it to trending. If we start to payout good post with big numbers higher quality content creators will come. Users like myself will stop lending out our SP for self votes and start voting for more content that is good.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello friend, thanks for stopping by and dropping this fine comments that support (not only support but give detailed arguments) how HF21 will mark the end of Bid bots or at least leave the bot owners in serious trouble. This is one of the best comments I have read in this regard. I sincerely appreciate your point of view.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @stever82

Thx for taking the time to share your opinion with us. Amazing comment buddy.

What this change will do to TIPU is make it much harder to use.

Perhaps you're right. I think bot owners will take into consideration the fact that their bots will be growing twice faster now and they only need to adopt their current algorythm to new situation.

Seriously it's not going to be that difficult. It's just playing around with numbers a little bit.

But after 50/50 I would stop doing that. If I get half my vote back I want my vote to be as big as possible. This to me is a good thing.

Interesting point. Something to think about.

But if they join a curation trail and just collect at least they won't be powering up silly posts.

Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am not so sure the whales will get as much as you think. I know most of them to have more than one account. So they can self vote without it looking like it. Now they have to share those votes with anyone else voting for them. Also, the downvote pool will help to avoid stuff like that if used correctly. It will make much more sense to have all you SP in once place and go and hunt for a good post to vote for. In that case, if you vote early you get a big piece of that 50% I am not a whale at all so I can't know for sure what they will do but I fell like it is harder to abuse a 50/50 set up than a 75/25 set up.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Regards, appreciated @gandhibaba, @crypto.piotr.

Initially we should reflect and ask ourselves: why am I in Steemit?
We will find ambiguous points of view.

If we are content creators, our goal is to promote our work and at the same time obtain economic benefits. But we also have investors who only seek to increase their profits.
The issue is, that in both cases we would be part of the balance.

We need the investors. Investors need content creators.

A 50/50 reward distribution assumes a balance in profits.
We can not ignore that the creators also vote, then somehow they would also receive benefit for this action.

Unquestionably the platform must evolve. If we are here, we must trust the administrators. The only way to introduce significant changes is through HF. Hopefully all the changes (resulting from deep analysis) bring benefits for all.

Greetings. Juan.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I fully agree with your conclusion, that we have to allow the platform to evolve. And let's hope that the developers work to improve the platform. I believe they realize that their future success relies on the platform's future success, and that they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I also agree with @juanmolina's contributions. They are well received.

And let's hope that the developers work to improve the platform. I believe they realize that their future success relies on the platform's future success, and that they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot. Cheers!

That is my hope also. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I fully agree with your conclusion, that we have to allow the platform to evolve

Thanks for sharing your view @majes.tytyty

that they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot.

Let's pray for that.

Yours,
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

@majes.tytyty -> take a hammer, a nail, and break a small hole in the wall of the steemit. water pressure will do the rest of the 'evolving' work.

bwa haha

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks @juanmolina. Your excellent contributions to this discourse summarizes the controversies here and strikes a balance. I agree with your witty, vital points. Thanks.

0
0
0.000
avatar

inigo.jpg
You said, "Initially we should reflect and ask ourselves: why am I in Steemit?
We will find ambiguous points of view.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambiguous
Most of us are quite unequivocal about what we want from Steemit; many of us are downright opinionated. Personally, I want an audience which will pay some attention to my writing, and I want to get paid for my efforts. See? There's nothing ambiguous about that at all.

You said, "A 50/50 reward distribution assumes a balance in profits."
Balance? You know what I get for an average blog entry?
$0.02
That's not what I call very damn balanced.

You said, "If we are here, we must trust the administrators."
Let me just ask you to please share with us the chain of logical reasoning which led you to this conclusion, because it is by no means apparent to me. Why in the name of all that's holy would you think that we "must" trust them?

But worst of all is the way you keep talking about "investors" when what you mean are whales. This ignores the fact that I too have invested in Steemit, not just money but over a year of my time and much unrewarded effort, as have hundreds of other minnows and redfish!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @redpossum

Great feedback buddy. Thx for taking the time to share your opinion with us.

Why in the name of all that's holy would you think that we "must" trust them?

You nailed it with this question.

This ignores the fact that I too have invested in Steemit, not just money but over a year of my time and much unrewarded effort, as have hundreds of other minnows and redfish!

The worst of all is the fact, that our voices are being ignored. I don't feel like there is much of a difference between centralized authorities and decentralized one (in that case it's just simple hard to point out who is really making decisions).

Personally, I want an audience which will pay some attention to my writing

Did you ever considered promoting your post by sending memos to all your active followers?

I also wanted to make some suggestion.

My impression is, that the hardest part of attracting attention on STEEMIT is the fact, that our audience have very little chance to actually find our publications. Lack of solid notification system is an obvious issue. And regardless how hard I would try - there is very little chance I would find out about your new interesting publications (my feed is just flooded with to many posts).

Please allow me to share some suggestion with you. If you would ever publish content related to blockchain, crypto, artificial intelligence, psychology etc. then perhaps you could simply send me memo with link to that post.

This way not only I would have a chance to read your publication, but I will also upvote it right away with 20k SP voting power. If I would consider it interesting then I may also share it with wider audience.

Please let me know what do you think.

Cheers, Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

OK, good suggestions. I'll take you up on that.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Can't wait for your new publication :) I've feeling that after almost a year without posting anything, your new post will be mindblowing :)

Cheers
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Almost a year? More like a month, bro :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Steem(it) is centralized. It always was. You all were lied to. I have proof.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.

PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Look at how fucking pathetic you are. You live such a sad life, you should change that.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I replied above you to this guy, honestly I am so sick of people who moan and groan about the little rewards they get, like they expect it should just come to them because they spent the time writing. Writing isn't everything, and I wish that person was still active so I could compare some accurate stats, but I've compared enough of other's since this HF to know I would probably find the same thing here.. I explain above..

It's even worse toknow he had been here a year! I can't imagine where I'll be in a year from now, but probably still groaning about people like him.. but not groaning about rewards LOL

( Too many people are here for rewards anyways... Just blog people! Geesh!)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, I see that you've left sadly.

You were here longer than me even when you were active though..

I just want to say it is NOT the fault of any hardfork or anything to do with Steemit about your author rewards being so low.

I've made 35 posts in about 4 months of being active.
Without bots, I average about $1.00 per post. Some of my posts have made a heck of a lot more, some made less..

But everyday I grow! and hey, I'm newb to blogging, and I'm pretty fucking boring if you ask me, there is nothing special about me and I'm not any better than you...

But there must be something I am better at which explains why I get some more rewards, and if I'd have to guess I'd say it's networking.

Networking is a lot of work, sometimes it takes more work than creating a new post, but the payoff is pretty even - the work you put in to networking is manifested almost 1:1 with account growth and rewards..

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Friends @gandhibaba, @crypto.piotr, @juanmolina

For many of us who are doing interaction inside and probably outside the platform, we are here because we like to do what we do, it is a way to release our own experiences and additionally we do what we like and that is why we receive something monetary.

Many times the changes are not favorable in the short term, everything will depend on the behavior and how they accept the changes

But I'm sure of something, I like to do interaction in steemit and I know I'm going to be inside because I feel that if it's worth it to be inside steemit, and I always know everyone about our platform about all my students.

Steemit is here to stay and it will be up to everyone to accept the changes.

I send you a big hug from Venezuela.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @lanzjoseg

Many times the changes are not favorable in the short term, everything will depend on the behavior and how they accept the changes

very true. However I believe that this change is great in short term, but looking long term it's a complete disaster.

Just watch all new STEEM being redistributed in a way, that would benefit wealthy ones and pretty much ignore everyone else. Slowly and steadily most available STEEM will end up completely in hands of very few. Is that healthy? I hardly doubt so.

This system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @juanmolina

Thank you for this amazing comment and your time. I'm guessing that you support HF21 changes and we're seeing them differently.

A 50/50 reward distribution assumes a balance in profits.

Personally I'm not sure if I agree that 50/50 is balanced split of reward. It does surely sound fair.

However I cannot think of many businesses out there, where 50% of company profit ends up as a divident distributed to investors.

Unquestionably the platform must evolve. If we are here, we must trust the administrators.

Question is: will this platform evolve only because it will reward current investors/stakeholders with double paychecks? Just wait until all those stakeholders will grow (and they will grow much faster now). We will witness centralization of power and New STEEM will be handed over mostly to those very few.

This system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

A 50/50 reward distribution assumes a balance in profits.

So again: 50% rewards for bringing value to blocklchain (creating content, commenting etc.) and 50% for just holding coin? It actually sounds like a recipe for upcoming disaster.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

@juanmolina,

50-50 is not enough. absolutely no go.

"The poor stay poor, the rich get rich. That's how it goes. Everybody knows...' (c) Cohen

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hard not to agree with your comment @qwerrie

0
0
0.000
avatar

but the decision-makers do not agree, @crypto.piotr.

all discussions show that people dont vote for it,
all predict harsh consequences and further ship-sinking
everybody knows - that s the way it goes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey Piotr,
I have stopped caring about the upcoming HF because it will happen. T20 consensus is established. It is only a question of when.

The only change I fully support is the modified reward curve.

A separate downvote pool is a wasted opportunity because I can't delegate it or have my ratio of downvotes follow a responsible entity. My downvote its useless - especially against bidbotted content. I mostly use my feed to get content. That way I hardly see downvotable posts.

The new changes will probably not obliterate bidbots.
And I highly doubt there will be more rewards because the 50/50 split causes more genuine curation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @bluerobo

I have stopped caring about the upcoming HF because it will happen.
It is only a question of when.

That's a solid question. I care about this HF simply because I want to understand what's happening and to compare my own view with others.

The only change I fully support is the modified reward curve.

Would you mind sharing with me why do you think it's a good change?

ps.
Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

First and foremost, thanks for your comments and for promoting this work to your audience and even placing a bounty on it. You're marvellous!

Now to your comments:

My impression is that Steemit is turning into ponzi scheme. Investors will be rewarded for doing really nothing, but pretty much for holding their STEEM (and auto-upvoting any kind of content).

I fear that this may not necessarily be the case. A ponzi scheme is a scheme where earlier investors are paid with the money of the later investors. As long as people still earn money on Steemit without having to invest in Steem, Steemit isn't a ponzi.

One more point, I don't think investors are rewarded wrongly because they chose to hold their SP. Have you noticed the crashing price of Steem lately? The main reason behind the price action is that many people here are dumping their Steem on the exchanges. If investors are incentivized to hold SP, I think it is worthwhile because the price of Steem depends on their actions.

Now one more question that is on my head: would HF21 help or destroy bidbots? Most likely demand for their services will still be there and at the same time bidbots will be growing twice as fast as they do right now (after all curation rewards will be doubled).

You're right that bid bot owners will earn more with a 50/50 curation reward. However, you seem to ignore the fact that a 50/50 model will leave the bid bot user in great negative ROI. Therefore, only a cretin will use bid bots after hf21 because such actions will only fetch nothing but losses.

Thanks for your contributions. You made some key points.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You wrote about "the crashing price of steem." But I'd hardly say that it's crashing.

For the most part, the price has moved along with all other cryptos this past year and a half. That implies that the issue is not with Steem, but with the overall crypto market.

As of last February, the Steem price was still in the $0.20s. Now it's up over 50%. While we would all love it to regain its momentum of late 2017, that probably wont happen, at least not for a while.

I agree that some of the price action might be due to people moving there Steem out of their wallets and to exchanges, but I don't agree that it's a major cause for concern.

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

That implies that the issue is not with Steem, but with the overall crypto market.

I tell people that all the time!

0
0
0.000
avatar

A year ago, STEEM wasn't ranked 65th at CoinMarketCap ... Many other cryptos have performed way better, and you get much more STEEM for one BTC than some months ago.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @majes.tytyty,
I totally agrees with you and It’s my major concern about Steem, it’s so dependent of BTC price (and this would extend to the whole crypto coin world).
I think we need to find the way to detach Steem from that main stream, how?, I think the key lays on Content and how it’s accessible and used... dapps, SMT and communities may be the way.
It’s only my humble user side opinion as major technical aspects scape to my knowledge.

Cheers

0
0
0.000
avatar

As Bitcoin and the other major cryptos rise (along with gold and silver), even the smaller cryptos such as Steem will tag along for the upward swing.

And to be clear, it's not just that cryptos will simply become more valuable. The price of all fiat currencies are far above their true values, so those rates will drop. Consequently, cryptos will gain in relative value.

It's just a matter of when.

0
0
0.000
avatar

...And that’s the “trap” for Steem. Whe need to gain “independence” and keep our “content” aside of it’s influence. Whe have this as our main weapon and our great advantage. We are full of real humans willing to share human things and feelings, something that greedy coins and assets can’t provide.
We should find a way to empower our values over this crazy economic model.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yep. For my part, I'll just keep producing quality content, and supporting the community whenever I can and in whatever way I can.

Onwards!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Another brilliant analysis. When the boss speaks, I listen.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, Steem is not really crashing just as you have asserted. The overall bear market affected all cryptos but some suffered more than the rest. And Steem seems to have suffered far more than many promising cryptos out there. There was a time Steem ranked 3 now it's 65 or so. We need a radical approach because price is key for our survival in the long run. Thanks for sharing your views.

0
0
0.000
avatar

For the most part, the price has moved along with all other cryptos this past year and a half. That implies that the issue is not with Steem, but with the overall crypto market.

A year ago, STEEM wasn't ranked 65th at CoinMarketCap ... Many other cryptos have performed way better, and you get much more STEEM for one BTC than some months ago.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @gandhibaba

Of course I'm marvellous :) Somehow everyone sees it except of my own wife hehehe :)

for promoting this work to your audience

I hope you will manage to reply to some of those valuable comments.

A ponzi scheme is a scheme where earlier investors are paid with the money of the later investors.

Ehm, I think this definition is a bit outdated. Masternodes are mostly ponzi and they "in theory" do not fit your description.

If investors are incentivized to hold SP, I think it is worthwhile because the price of Steem depends on their actions.

That's correct and I do agree with you fully. Investors will have reasons to hold SP and probably powering down will slow down a lot right now.

But those who actually bring value and create content + engage with comments will suffer. Eventually we will end up with huge speculative bubble, with very few authors, bidbots bigger than ever before and with hardly any traffic. Not to mention that if price of STEEM will grow then this place will turn into ghost town (new users will not be willing to spend 100-200usd just to power up to 50SP -> min necessary amount to be able to "test" Steemit without hiting Resource Credit limitations right away).

However, you seem to ignore the fact that a 50/50 model will leave the bid bot user in great negative ROI

I ignore this fact because it will be VERY EASY for bidbot owners to adjust. Little math, few small changes and bidbots will be running again. This change will only force those programmers behind bidbots to implement some updates.

I really wish to have your optimism. I believe that short term this change will indeed bring up the price of STEEM, but in long run I see it as a huge opportunity for abuse. Those who are rich will easily get richer (bringing no value to STEEM blockchain) and content creators will struggle more than ever before.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not to mention that if price of STEEM will grow then this place will turn into ghost town (new users will not be willing to spend 100-200usd just to power up to 50SP -> min necessary amount to be able to "test" Steemit without hiting Resource Credit limitations right away).

Hard Fork 21 contradicting Hard Fork 20.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Any new changes MUST give us content creators and manual curators something worthwhile. I'm just not seeing taht in the HF21 proposals. Finding a way to curb bid bot abuse is far more important in the long-term than is tweaking the reward calculations. As for the numbers game, switching to 50/50 is a HUGE change, and if any changes are to be made, it should be a gentler adjustment to see how it all pans out there first. I have seen others propose something like 67% author, 33% curator to test the waters.

The last HUGE changes from a creator viewpoint were the change from 1day/30day payouts to a single 7d payout, and tweaks to the reward curve. The former gave content creators a better single window for getting eyes on their content. The latter seems to have cut down on votebots. These were overall for the best, I think. How will HF21 help us fight the deluge of spam and bid-bots? That is what I need to know. The platform needs to be sound before STEEM can gain in value for the overall market. Until the platform is better policed, I don't foresee any hope beyond altcoin speculation as Bitcoin gets volatile again. Perhaps a separate downvote pool would help. Maybe spending extra RC instead of vote power for flagging bad content could do something, since I now rarely make any measurable dent in my RC reserves.

[/rant]

Oh, and thanks for sending a memo that wasn't another BS bid bot or resteem offer.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for this your comment @jacobtothe

I only just realized that I never thanked you. Have a great monday ahead :)

Oh, and thanks for sending a memo that wasn't another BS bid bot or resteem offer.

Absolutely :) My pleasure.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I still think we need to get rid of the bidbots and everything would go back to the way it was before them.

Why can't the blockchain simply request human verification before starting up a voting session?

What if the blockchain just asked simple one line random questions that a human would know?

I.E. like what color is the sky on earth? On Mars?

blue, red, orange purple?
And then only give the bidbot (user) 10 seconds to answer. We could use old nursery rhymes, things the bot guys could not guess. How bid bot programmers going to program the bots to do a whole bunch of random Q&A??? Nope, They couldn't keep up with the changes!!!

We just need to focus on the tech behind shutting down the bots!

Also we need an external database that manages and adds all the random questions. NO KYC needed, just little stumbling blocks. Just like recapture, but in text format!!! The 50/50 is not going to do anything but make the bidbot abusers even more money and make people like me who are outcast left even worse off.

I.e. my comment for example is not spam, but if we could stumble the bot my comment could live!

0
0
0.000
avatar

You're a waste of space. You've been flagged like the trash you are.

0
0
0.000
avatar

only a cretin will use bid bots

You would be surprised how many cretins are on the server.

0
0
0.000
avatar

These cretins like their spam and plagiarism, too. No wonder they rely on bidbots for support.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You took the words right out of my mouth.
Most whales did not became that far by writing good content at all.
The good-content-story is as fake as HF20 fighting scam and HF21 fighting bots.

The blinds will buy it but soon authors will end with nothing.
Is it worth investing so much time here?

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Good points. As for me, I'm not sure of whether or not it's worth it. But one of the reasons I'm here is that I truly enjoy creating the content that I create. Secondarily, I hope I can continue to earn Steem from it, and eventually earning more and more.

And I must admit, many of the details leave me either confused or brain-dead. So, I just continue to create my content, and hope all works out well.

I hope you don't give up on this platform yet. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I like it here too although I am slow. Palnet will hopefully be an extra.

Since I am an only mobile user I also have not much options. There are platforms I can hardly read on my smartphone and a part makes it hard for me to write/reply.

So I stay. If it comes to it they will do as they like and it all will just end like any other platform... making a huge income over the back of others.

☘💕

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm hoping (and believing) that the witnesses and the developers understand that the old dictum is true ... True success will come only if success comes to all.

Best of luck!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sorry, but this time I have no interesting comment to make. All I intend saying is that he is wrong, many from Steemit have moved to other equivalents of Steemit. Even I signed up, though I was reluctant to cut ties with all the friends I have made here.

I see only one solution...one way for me to ensure the curators make flat out zero from me: I will set out my payout to : Deny Payout.

If we all do the same, for how long will the so-called curators (the "true motivators" of steemit) see this change as being profitable to them.

I suggest everyone take a look at :
PocketNet
Whaleshares
Weiku

and others...

As for income on comments: I have been withdrawing from that because of the witnesses becoming so clever. What do I mean?

When I made a post, up until recently, I would submit my post and the page would change to show me a feed of the new Posts. I would go through them, looking for new posters who I felt deserved some encouragement.

Now, if we DARE to upvote someone within a period of less than 15 minutes, we are penalised by having our participation in the curatorship cancelled to zero. We now MUST wait 15 minutes, as if we have nothing else to do with our time...

I honestly did not care about making a curator fee, since most of those who I voted for were new and very low Rep posters. But now I am told that I must wait for 15 minutes, like an idiot, instead of getting on with my life. Even if I go look at something else, with the intention of returning, I forget, since there is so much else to do.

So...sorry new posters, I am withdrawing from this side of steemit life. No comments and no upvotes from me to any of you.

I have enjoyed making comments and upvoting new posters....but now it has ended it seems. Not satisfied with causing damage through Flagging, they are now getting greedy while also claiming they are the only ones who contribute to the success of Steemit. There is NO point in debating the matter, since they are so convinced they are in the right, that they do not honestly debate, just ram their point of view down our throats and suggest we are stupid for not agreeing with them.

0
0
0.000
avatar

the 15 minute time period is actually a reduction from the original 30 minute. It was and is intended to reduce the ability of bots to get the curation rewards. Since we're loaded with bots, not sure how that works but that is the intent.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You say it used to be 30 minutes? I seem to recall that until end of lasst year, when we made a post, we had the choice of setting a self-upvote instantly and I remember being told by those with higher reps that I should not set for a self-upvote, as it means I get the lions share of the curation pool and no whale will ever vote for me if they see I self-upvoted first. Are you telling me that many of the old-timers lied to me?

Also, if that is the excuse, it is a stupid one, since the time rule is known, so all owners of bots only have to adjust them to start at 15 minutes. No, this is just to make it more difficult for human beings, so that the bots of the whales can get the rewards.

How often do people go searching to find out what new posts were made? Do not most of us only look when we have submitted our own post and the page then automatically shows us the latest posts? So, we then see a post we like and want to reward. Our choices are three: either forget about it, or wait 15 minutes or just click an upvote even if it is within the first minute or two?

Till now, I just upvoted and moved on, more interested in helping the poster than getting a tiny share of his reward.

That was fine for as long as I did not think about it. Once I realised this was deliberately done without a real reason, just to ensure I do not wait, as the bots of the whales do, I stopped upvoting all and sundry - excellent, good or bad posts, they are all ignored now.

Multip[ly my reaction by thousands and I am certain it works to the advantage of Steemit and the new posters - who mostly get ignored by the whales, anyway (that was sarcasm, just in case you did not pick it up).

I have asked others and they all say they skip the feed of new posts and only check, now and then, the feed of their followers....so I am right, we have condemned the new posters who have a low sp, since no whale wants to waste many upvotes on non-profitable upvoting of newbies.

I would love to learn that I am wrong - but sadly, logic does support my arguments. A pity, as I genuinely enjoyed the thought that I am helping a number of new posters...

0
0
0.000
avatar

yes previously the 30 minute reverse auction would benefit the author. the benefit would decrease until the 30 minute mark where the curator then gained.

With the 15 minute reverse auction the rewards are burned in decrease amount until the 15 minute mark.

Same auction, just where the rewards were directed changed.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I wanted to be certain that I am not being pigheaded, so I asked all my friendly posters (all are writers or artists or musicians or poets - in other words, they are not crypto experts).

They have told me that as soon as the reward changes to 50 / 50, they are moving elsewhere. It seems I am the only one of them who will keep posting - though all my posts will refuse payments....

0
0
0.000
avatar

This sounds really worrying. I hope this doesn't mean the end of steemit. I stopped using Facebook after it became a big data monitoring cess pit. I thought Steemit was more fair, but it seems like this will make it less fair for creators. That's a big shame!

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Here are some facts:

  1. No one knows how it will affect behavior. Whether there would be more or less shitposts from large stakeholders and their friends is unknown.
  2. Bots can easily adjust costs to stay profitable. There is zero reason to believe they can't adjust how much they charge and the vote they dish out.
  3. Several whales have made it clear (or insinuated) that they will utilize the subsidized downvotes. Even some bid bot owners will also drop flags when that becomes a reality.
  4. How beneficiary rewards, siphoned from the dapps, will affect its users' sentiments to continue to stay using them is also unknown.
  5. Auto-voting is nothing new. Plenty of people are on curation trails and already milk them excessively by posting multiple nonsense a day.
  6. Whoever saying you are wrong is also making conjectures. There are so many factors at play.

Here are my opinions:

All the extra stuff about how people behave is moot. Many people, across different communities, have different beliefs of what is the best for Steem.

You have folks who believe bid bots are the true incentives for people buying Steem while many feel they are destroying it. I won't get into the details of those fallacies. Economics is definitely not most people's strong suite around here. I would read everything with a grain of salt.

Curation rewards take time to liquidate. Expect services that will provide liquidity. In fact, they already exist. One that already exists is @likwid.

The fundamental issue with Steem is that one can easily do well by playing solitaire. It can be with your own stake or through bots. There are plenty of people whose posts have only bot comments on them, but what do they care? They continue to create for nobody and vote for nobody but themselves.

I would bet anything that most people have no idea some of the tactics used by people to reach ROI around here. One great example is someone continually babbling about the 15-min wait. Nobody waits for that. More and more people vote around 8-10 minute mark to accrue some potential losses in exchange of actually earning curation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the input and your clarification re the various points above. While I find much of this entire HF discussion far above my head, it's good to read well-reasoned comments such as yours.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the compliment.

We won't know until we get there. I think we can all agree on that the status quo isn't working.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Whilst I was cracking my head wondering how to comment given the so many unknowns, I came across your well reasoned comment. This is probably the most sensible comment.

The investors and the authors+curators group are in a symbiotic relationship feeding each other here. If one of them benefit excessively at the expense of the other, that will be the beginning of the end of the steem blockchain.

However, I think the investors have more to lose than the other group should steem flounder.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Problem is, many people don’t have an investor’s mindset. They have the speculator’s. Hence why everyone feels “stacking coins” is the most important and profitable thing to do at all times.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Let's get one thing straight: Everyone (I repeat) EVERYONE who contributes here is an investor of some sort.

Do you see up-votes on your posts by any whales on a regular basis? I can't say that I do any more. So what does that mean?

It means that I don't rely on whale votes. I'm here and earning my little bit from the little fish like myself. Does it make any difference at all if all the whales leave? I really don't know! I expect the price of Steem to drop as they pull out, but eventually it will return to something stable from the value of all the OTHER investors besides the whales. Those doing statistics have already shown that the middle class is growing and whales are becoming less relevant as far as SP goes.

Will a 50/50 split hurt me? I don't know that either. I cast votes and I receive votes, so one may balance out the other.

Do I think changing to a 50/50 split will solve Steem's problems? Not at all. The goal-posts will have been moved, but the rules of the game are still pretty much the same and those who game the system will continue to do so; they will just find new ways to do it. What it will do is to disrupt all the calculations of programs like SBI and other less-known programs. MANY people have invested into these programs (note the word, 'invested') and could end up being badly hurt by the change. HOW MANY PEOPLE need to be badly hurt before they stop messing with the rewards system? What will the whales do if everyone else pulls out because they keep getting hurt here? Do you think Steem will survive with just whales attempting to outwit each other to grab the biggest piece of the pie?

0
0
0.000
avatar

+100. man. your deduction is so clear. @happyme

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks.
As far as I can tell, Steem NEEDS the small investors as much as it needs the big ones; perhaps even more. Can you imagine what Steem would be like with just a dozen people making content?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Let's get one thing straight: Everyone (I repeat) EVERYONE who contributes here is an investor of some sort.

Love that comment. Very well said @happyme

0
0
0.000
avatar

I completely agree with @happyme, in any community it is necessary the participation of all, large, medium and small, but we must think about helping the youngest ones grow, if they grow, we all grow and we have the satisfaction of contributing and build a better future for everyone.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You've made some fine contributions here, friend. Your points are well received. Thanks for stopping by.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @enforcer48

What an amazing comment. One of the best I've read so far.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on that particular issue.

ps. thx for introducing me to @likwid

Yours,
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the invitation to debate @crypto.Piotr. I, like you i think that this is an abuse. This new change, rather than attract, alienate users, I don't know if this is what you are looking for, if so you will succeed without any problem.

The theme of the bot, very well what poses, will not fail to receive huge profits at the expense of the work of others. Another important point will be the production of quality content, I do not believe that we dedicate ourselves to produce good topics knowing that repartiremos profits with those who already have it all.

If we observe today the movement on the platform, it is undeniable that have lowered the frequency of publications, that is to say, something negative for the ecosystem. At least for small users what will be our benefits? I do not see anything yet.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @belkisa758

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

At least for small users what will be our benefits? I do not see anything yet.

Neither do I :(

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

@crypto.piotr and @gandhibaba, good post and great thoughts. Did anyone realize that HF21 is going to happen without much of debate? That is what bothers me. It looks like the 50/50 plan appears to be a blunder knowingly deployed. If the idea is to stop bot voting in favor of authors them the 50/50 program does exactly the opposite.

This is bull idea and I don't think they should go ahead with it. But then again the proposal is voted by people to support those people ONLY. I doubt anyone is really thinking about the community.

I am happy to be proved wrong with the implementation. But honestly, would be more happy if it did not happen in the first place.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Although I do not agree completely with your thoughts but you've made some vital contributions, which I very much appreciate. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am sure you wouldn't because your post already says so. But think from the perspective of those who buy bot votes. Assuming nobody else votes, the bot which votes on your article takes 50% of the cut.. Now, not owners will close down their bots or build more? And if the answer is the latter would it be good for Steemit? That's my question. Anyway, I myself use bot votes, so just saying.

Please feel free to express your opposition. Opposition does not make you my enemy but allows me to know you better. And that's definitely good... 😊 😊

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Of course, @Oivas opposition does not mean that we are enemies. And I will also like to know you better. I do not agree that 50/50 will completely empower bots as you put it. Yes, bots will earn more from curation but will bidders find such business lucrative? The answer is a NO. Using bots after a 50/50 is introduced will make the bidders LOSE their money because you will need at least a 50% ROI from the bots to make any profit. And with that, only a few people will be able to use the bots within a voting round. That will make vote buying less attractive for the bidders and even for the bots owner because, in theory, there will be too many bidders chasing a few bots within a limited time. I trust this meets you well, friend.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Fair point. So two things can happen. Either people stop using bots altogether (favorable situation) OR more bots will spring up to cater to demand and the possibility of making Steem during bids (unfavorable situation). Let's see what happens.. 😊

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Dear @oivas

It looks like the 50/50 plan appears to be a blunder knowingly deployed.

You nailed it buddy!

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @crypto.piotr.

I read your comment and I am stunned. The hardfork21 will be a low blow for the creators of content, which will further reduce the chances of growth and earn some money for the work done.

I thank you very much for sending me the link to this post, but it can not be done so that the process can be stopped or we could do to survive the implementation of hardfork21.
I translate your comment for spanish people because I think your ideas are very interesting for them.

Your comment in Spanish:

En primer lugar: gran elección de tema amigo. Esta es definitivamente una publicación muy perturbadora e importante.

Desde que leí la publicación de @timcliff no pude dejar de pensar en las consecuencias de este cambio vital. Después de todo, pasar del modelo de recompensa "75/25" a "50/50" es un gran negocio.

Entiendo completamente, que la idea principal detrás de tal cambio es reducir el abuso de algunos autores que se auto-votan a sí mismos. ¿Pero puede realmente ser arreglado? Apenas lo dudo.

Digamos que yo auto-voté mi propio contenido. Después de HF21 recibiré menos como autor de un voto tan alto. Pero será compensado con recibir más como curador.

Bajo este régimen, el autor ganará el 50% de los pagos en las publicaciones, mientras que los curadores tendrán que compartir el 50% restante.

En otras palabras: los creadores de contenido que realicen un trabajo real tendrán aún más dificultades para ser recompensados. Para obtener cualquier recompensa, necesitan crear contenido.

Al mismo tiempo, los curadores no necesitan hacer ningún trabajo. Después de todo, pueden activar los auto-votos y simplemente disfrutar el crecimiento dos veces más rápido. Básicamente, nos estamos alejando de recompensar a quienes crean contenido o son autores de comentarios de calidad. Steemit recompensará a esas personas menos.

Mi impresión es que Steemit se está convirtiendo en esquema ponzi. Los inversores serán recompensados ​​por no hacer nada en realidad, pero sí por mantener su STEEM (y auto-upvoting cualquier tipo de contenido).

Me encantaría que alguien me explicara que estoy equivocado y no veo una imagen más grande.

BitBots y HF21
Ahora, una pregunta más en mi cabeza: ¿HF21 ayudaría o destruiría los bidbots? La demanda más probable por sus servicios seguirá estando allí y, al mismo tiempo, los bidbots crecerán dos veces más rápido que ahora (después de que todas las recompensas de curación se duplicarán).

¿Me equivoco? Estoy tratando de averiguar cómo puede ayudar HF21, pero todo lo que puedo ver es "enormes oportunidades de abuso" de la plataforma Steemit.

IMPORTANTE: leí y valoré todos los comentarios interesantes.
Tuyo
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the translation. @crypto.piotr comments are really valuable and relevant to this debate. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

You're wellcome.
I'm really happy to do that. My English is in begginners level, but I did my best effort to understand your post and I think it's a very interesting subject. Everybody have to read that
Thanks for sharing.
I'm followng you

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @mllg

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks a lot!!! You received a lot of comments. I think you do magic, answering all

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi! Dear @crypto.piotr

You are a nice friend so you know?
Today is my birthday, and I want to share with you
my joy to celebrate one more year

Have a nice day!!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

As a rather hard-working content creator, I see your point. Or course, I'd love to maintain my current level of rewards.

However, I believe the long-term growth and stability of the platform is of utmost importance. I don't really care about short-term profits. I'd rather have a situation in which my income drops 50%, but the price of Steem rises 100%, or 500% – or 2000%, to its previous high.

As for the abuse of the system, I agree it's a concern, but I believe it might be a minor concern. In any system / organization, there is plenty abuse and inefficiency and incompetence and worse.

In many cases, the system survives. It may not be working at 100% efficiency, but it plods onwards, and sometimes keeps doing quite well.

As @enforcer48 said, there are many factors in play. I'll just continue doing what I do, and hoping that it continues to add value to the platform. And I hope that the developers and witnesses do what they have to do on their end to also add value.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @majes.tytyty

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Dear @crypto.piotr and all who participate, is a very good discussion raised here, the real analyst is the one who will benefit the HF21 the most and I believe that a balance point should be created in which we all benefit, I understand that we need the investors to maintain the platform but the content managers are the ones that give life and add to this platform the real value of what it is now.

In my opinion we are always afraid of the changes, but any change introduced needs some time to see what results it brings, I think we should wait and see what happens, but if the result is the balance welcome.

Now, when I speak of balance, I refer to the fact that this not only commits us as creators of content but also as curators since we will obtain equal profits from both activities.

That is my opinion.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for this balanced opinion shared here. It is a noble one. We all will benefit one way or the other from the proposed changes. Regards.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This change is shit. It actually encourages self-voting in all scenarios. I can already get more from curation than from self-voting, but now I might as well not curate anymore, seeking other ways to reward content creators instead.

Circlejerking whales will never have it any easier than HF21. Fuck that.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Please read the comments of @stever82. It is not as bad as you think. Thanks for your comments, anyway.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nothing new there. This change is shit.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Here's my tuppence -ha'penny worth...

Whilst I could technically understand what goes on with Steem under the hood, I just don't have them time and this applies to most REAL people who just aren't interested in mechanics.

I want to post stuff and it is fantastic to see it accrue value. However the values are wildly disperate unless you catch the eye of a whale.

The biggest problem I have on Steem is that there isn't very much interesting content (that I'm finding) about anything other than Steem or crypto.

I just don't have the spare mental capacity to figure out what this or that algorithmic change will make but I do know that Steem should do everything it can to encourage actual real content over nonsense spamming.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for this your comment @brianoflondon

I only just realized that I never thanked you. Have a great monday ahead :)

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I agree. I don't think the change is a good idea. It certainly won't fix the "problem" of authors voting for their own content. In my view this is not a problems at all. At least these people are creating content.
This is a lot more work than just voting. (curating)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @apshamilton

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

This just reflects life really. When you play in the big boys sand pit you must expect to play by their rules,
Why would the people at the top want to help the people at the bottom.
We vote for witnesses like we do for politicians, then they all do as they please to fill their own pockets.
HF 21 is going to happen so get used to it.
As with everything in life we will find other ways to help ourselves to the crumbs that are left.
When you leave the sand pit check your pockets, a few grains every day soon add up.😁😎

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hahaha I find your comments funny, pragmatic and interesting too. This is just the reality of life.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @andyjem

HF 21 is going to happen so get used to it.

Any idea when will HF21 take place?

Cheers, Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have the same though as you with the 50%.
I dont create great content, by now I can grow twice as fast? Doesn't feel right. Not sure I would call it a ponzi scheme tho :p
There might be less demand of bidbots, but what about bots which you just delegate to and give an upvote? They can give out bigger upvotes faster.
Or paid upvote services.
Or sbi share x)

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @cwow2

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you @crypto.piotr, for your invitation to comment on HF21. I take the middle ground for this HF21, maybe with a higher percentage of content creators, for example 60-40%. That would be very fair in my opinion.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @anroja

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I read your posts and comment (honestly I did not read all comments). What you point out seem to be right but I also like comment of @juanmolina, @gandhibaba and @bluerobo. I don't worry about HF21 because it will happen. Is there any chance to change it.

You concerned about the bidbots. I think they will change their ROI so less users can use bidbots but in sometime they will grow again to fulfil the need of users. I basically depend on the dapps so they will grow quickly and I can get the the same
payout as before HF21.

Some whales are not using their power. Will HF21 can bring them into business. I think that would be the key factor.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Some whales are not using their power. Will HF21 can bring them into business. I think that would be the key factor.

I agree with the above. HF21 may do that overdue magic. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

The bid bots will still be there, I doubt the HF21 will fix all the problems.
@justyy - the author of https://SteemYY.com

0
0
0.000
avatar

They're going to push content creators away and then they'll wonder why we've all left the platform.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are absolutely right, these are very important questions.
My humble opinion - 50/50 will help attract investors, those who are so lacking in STEEM. I understand perfectly why there are so many perturbations, because 90 +% are people who see STEEM as an opportunity to earn money.
But, for me, as a person who loves STEEM and for whom STEEM has long been a place for investment - this is great news. I am sure that everyone will be happy if this change will help to raise the price of STEEM in 2 or more times. Such a raise the price, in my opinion, is absolutely real.

Вы абсолютно правы, это очень важные вопросы.
Мое скромное мнение - 50/50 поможет привлечь ИНВЕСТОРОВ, тех, которых так не хватает на СТЕЕМ. Я прекрасно понимаю, почему так много возмущений, ведь 90+% это люди, которые видят СТЕЕМ - как возможность заработать.
Но, для меня, как человека, который любит СТЕЕМ, и для которого СТЕЕМ давно стал местом для инвестиций - это замечательная новость. Я уверен, что все будут довольны, если это изменения поможет поднять цену на СТЕЕМ в 2 или больше раза. Такой поем, по моему мнению - абсолютно реален.

#spt #palnet #sct #actnearn #weedcash

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your fine thoughts on this post. This is exactly the point I was trying to make throughout this essay. I am glad that we share similar thoughts on this subject. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

ну да! мир дерьмо, но все мы любим деньги, так что давайте делать его ещё дерьмовее! @cranium

0
0
0.000
avatar

Можете перефразировать? Ваше сообщение можно рассматривать двусмысленно. #spt #palnet #sct #jjj #aaa #actnearn #weedcash

0
0
0.000
avatar

да, это поток сознания, в котором переход не с одной ступеньки на другую, а сразу на весь пролёт. не обращайте внимания. -> я думаю что в результате очередного форка удастся если не спасти, то укрепить-повысить ден.единицу, но общий уровень системы станет еще более говнистей. @cranium

"everybody knows, thats the way it goes" (c)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @cranium

Thank you for sharing your humble opinion with us.

My humble opinion - 50/50 will help attract investors

In my humble opinion it will mostly benefit current so called "whales".

Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Your concerns are absolutely justified. It can be a very long time to guess, but none of us can predict the future. In this news there are both positive and negative sides. Time will put everything in its place.
But, the very fact of hardfork, against the background of the cosmic development speed of Steem –engine, should have a positive impact.

#spt #palnet #sct #jjj #aaa #actnearn #weedcash

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The argument that the investors need more return on their investment is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If I am a whale that has an upvote of 1 STU, in order to see a "ROI" all I have to do is simply upvote myself to get 75% of that vote, whereas I get a portion of the 25% as well. One must understand that if I have a 1 STU upvote, I won't be receiving 0.25 STU as a curation reward (25%) because a portion of that goes to those who voted before me. I don't know exactly how much, but let's assume that I'd get roughly 0.10 STU in curation rewards from my 1 STU upvote. So I'm getting roughly 0.85 STU as my supposed "ROI", and 0.15 STU is shared amongst other curators. I could be wrong with numbers here, but I am just assuming for an easy example.

Now let's switch it to 50/50.

I upvote myself that 1 STU whereas I am getting 0.50 STU as the "author" and say, 0.20 STU as the curator. That is actually 0.15 STU less than that of the 75/25 model. As a "whale" that wants "ROI" I would feel inclined to upvote myself more in order to make up for that loss, because I'm actually getting less. Again, I am certain my numbers are not accurate when it comes to curation rewards, but I am also aware that as the curator of a 1 STU upvote, I am not receiving the entire 50% of my 1 STU upvote. Regardless of whether or not my number is innacurate, I see a smaller return.

I also seem to be confused about what "ROI" is, and feel that the definition of "ROI" is different in the Steemit world than it is anywhere else on the planet.

If I invest $200 in a stock/share/token, the "return on investment" is indicated by the price change, not what I am able to upvote myself. If I buy $200 worth of steem @ 0.40 cents per steem, I will have about 500 steem.

So my 500 Steem that I bought for $200 is my investment. A return on my investment would be that when the price of 1 steem jumps to 0.80 cents, my 500 steem are now worth $400. This gives me a $200 return on investment. That's what ROI means.

Generating "more steem" from my original $200 / 500 steem investment by upvoting myself is technically not ROI, in terms of what ROI actually is anywhere else in the world.

When you buy 1 bitcoin for 3 grand and 1 bitcoin jumps to 9 grand, the "return on investment" is $6,000. Not more bitcoins.

I remember a while ago someone was running a small contest. Anyone who commented the right answer would get a 100% upvote. Then the price of steem started to plummet. This person was not content with the self upvotes they were giving themselves, so they dropped that 100% upvote to their commenters from 100% to 10%, claiming it was "costing them money" to give out said 100% upvotes.

I thought to myself, "What?" How is that costing you money? Upvoting doesn't cost anyone money. That is a terrible excuse. So to say that "investors" need "ROI" by "upvoting" themselves in my opinion is ridiculous. It actually makes it more of a ponzi than anything.

Q: "How do you get ROI when you invest your money in a stock/share/crypto?"
A: "You wait for said stock/share/crypto to go up in value, where you can then calculate your ROI.

Q: "How do you get ROI when you invest in STEEM?"
A: "You wait for the price of STEEM to go up in value, where you can then calculate your ROI.

While most people think "You simply upvote yourself!" <-- how is that ROI? It simply is not. That is false ROI. That's not the definition of ROI.

Q: "How do you mine for STEEM?"
A: "You don't necessarily mine for STEEM. You create quality content in hopes that you get upvoted, which will reward you in STEEM.

It's work. You get rewarded for the work you put in. Sure, upvoting yourself is all a part of the process, where you can literally reward yourself for the work that you did, but in my opinion, the 50/50 hard fork will simply create more self upvoting.

I don't necessarily think self upvoting is wrong, but there's a lot more self upvoting going on lately and less curation, not because there's no incentive of curation rewards, but because people have this false definition of what ROI is.

As a curator, you aren't here to curate yourself. Self curation is not what drives the price of steem. Curation of quality content is what drives the price of steem. Otherwise, it gives the entire platform a sense of "pay to win". Unless you have the money to invest in a bunch of steem, you're never going to get there. If that were the case, curation groups like curie would not be around.

Sure, I upvote myself, but I also try to upvote others. Lately I'm too busy to search for quality content myself, so I stick to upvoting those who I can remember to upvote. It's not easy as I follow more and more people, to keep up with everyone since I am just one person, but this hard fork won't change much.

If I am a whale that is used to making a minimum of 10 steem for every post I make, a 50/50 split would probably bring my minimum to 7 steem or less. If I am unsatisfied with that, I will simply upvote my own comments a little more so as to make up for it. Again, that's not ROI.

I realize it's a fine line, since in order to have a heavy upvote, I have to "invest" my "steem" so as to reward myself with "more steem". There's like a double investment/ROI thing going on here.

So I invest fiat currency in steem, my ROI for my fiat investment comes when Steem goes up. I have also "powered up" the steem that I bought, or for a better term, invested my steem into the platform, giving me an upvote that's worth more than 0. So my ROI from my "invested steem" comes when I upvote myself? As a minnow, that doesn't make any sense, because people who upvote me that have a much heavier vote than I do, do so because I have also supported their content (which, in my opinion, is quality content). Not necessarily a circle jerk, but they see the work I put in like I see the work they put in. Networking is what generates more steem for everyone. Networking is what will drive the price of steem.

When it comes to bidbots...well, they've always been a problem, and it simply creates a trending page that isn't really a trending page. 90% of the posts on the trending page are only trending because of bidbots or self upvotes anyways. At best, the 50/50 split will hurt the bidbots, but it can still hurt the platform. Especially if whales see smaller rewards (not returns, rewards) whether they upvoted themselves or not, it's going to bring smaller rewards, which will make them want to self upvote more than they do now.

Unless there's 2 types of ROI. ROI, Return on Investment, and ROI, Rewards on Investment.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is probably the best comment here.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You may have overlooked that many stocks pay dividends. There are more ways than an increase in stock price for an investor to gain value. Its possible you covered this in detail in your post. I chose not to read it all.

As an investor the one thing I know for certain is no one can create time, as such I have learned that if one can not make a point in a timely manner, I will not waste my life trying to piece together their emotions.

Cheers

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Self upvoting is not an example of dividends. That part i did leave out but it has been explained in terms of how the amount of VESTS you buy now will cost more STEEM later. My comment had nothing to do with emotions. No I didnt mention dividends, but because self upvoting, or upvoting in general, is NOT dividends. It's rewards. Otherwise, things like steemflagrewards would be called steemflagdividends. Curators dont get paid dividends for curating. They are rewarded for curating. I believe that there is always a balance in things, as such while you see no value in my comment and were too lazy to read it, someone else felt it was probably the best comment here.

Cheers! :D

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dividends imply you actually made profits.

Simply minting coins is called inflation. Whenever an upvote is cast, there is pending inflation.

The reward pool is not profit generated by the blockchain. It's a predetermined rate. If the value of token goes down, minting them faster won't give you ROI.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @bitfiend

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm with you on this @crypto.piotr I've seen you do great work in this community and people like you will be the least favoured ones here. 50/50 is a stupid idea made of nostalgia of an old time (where I wasn't present in STEEM) Under 50/50 a person could make an alt account and upvote that.

Bidbots won't be affected at all and I think it will be a huge disaster for the long term. Most of these HF21 changes are only from an old vocal minority with a lot of stake. This is going to drive out bloggers even more and it's not going to be helping any DAPPs.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @d-zero

I've seen you do great work in this community and people like you will be the least favoured ones here.

Unfortunatelly you're right :(

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello Piotr,

not much to add for me here! You said it all. We're on the same page with this. In general if you leave room for exploitation it's gonna happen. I also see bid bot's growing even faster.

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for this your comment @doifeellucky

I only just realized that I never thanked you. Have a great monday ahead :)

Yours

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sure! My pleasure! You have a great Monday too!

Cheers

0
0
0.000
avatar

To be honest I'm not optimistic about this HF and since my earnings are mostly from uncertain curations (read: don't always happen.) I think I'll earn less from now on which is discouraging.

I understand both sides point of view, and I"m leaning more on your view piotr (It will not stop abuse!) Though I agree with someone here that no one knows what will happen yet.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @ahmadmanga

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I find the speed with which HF21 has gone from proposal to potential, the disagreements between witnesses, and the HF20 debacle combine to make me very wary of this fork.

I don’t think bidbots are such a big problem that we need to keep redesigning the system to try and stop them when they just alter or adjust their code and keep right on while the rest of us deal with the fallout.

Also, it’s extremely frightening when the argument is “well, users have no other alternative”...’cause that means there soon will be.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @definethedollar

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is a non-issue to me until the day it happens, and then I will adjust as needed. Giving my opinion of what witnesses and whales will do here is a waste of my time and I do not pay attention to them until they make changes I have to deal with.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well said. And likely this will not be the last change.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

If nothing changes we would see no change :) This change has been discussed enough it's time to try it, then we'll change again...

Relax, it will be fine... Prolly.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @crypto.piotr,
You did it again 😂, I’m here due to your memo. You’re a great content finder, content that awakens my interest on interacting on the platform. You make me even feel as if I were important for the ecosystem when asking for my “human” opinion.
That “human” word is key on my view, I’m one of those and cannot avoid it even in my real life. I’m not a benefit machine on this growing greedy robotic world nor a sheep. I do think and do feel and not all can be explained using maths nor algorithms...I guess that’s why I love music 😀
From A “human” perspective I’m quite with your comment so I’m not going to repeat the ideas you stated.
I will stick on the “bid-bots” issue: why don’t we implement ‘captcha ‘ on the platform?, is that difficult? we’d easily get rid of bots doesn’t it?
I made my comment to the post where you can read more of what I think about the subject.
I put the link to it to it, I know how busy you are reading comments here: https://steemit.com/@drakernoise/pt6til
Thanks for bringing me here and your support Piotr

Big hug

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @drakernoise

You’re a great content finder, content that awakens my interest on interacting on the platform.
You make me even feel as if I were important for the ecosystem when asking for my “human” opinion.

I'm blushing again! :) And I'm glad to hear that you like sharing your "human" opinion with me.

ps.
Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sry Piotr, It wasn't my intention to make you blush, maybe it's just me being too thanky and worried about others virtues to be exposed or recognized.
I'll try and be more ”plain” or objective on that sense.
Have also a nice Monday 😊

0
0
0.000
avatar

The quality content creators are at loss, and the one who is at profits are those who can play a game with the bots...

0
0
0.000
avatar

What about bots or platforms like smartsteem? Wouldn't they be able to provide 201% roi since you are paying for it and they use users votes??

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

A very controversial measure, by the looks of it. I think the big problem with this is that the little user is going to get a good bang. The one that creates content worked with the hope of being voted by curation projects... Will they leave or will they demotivate? Really new investors and curators will appear, or only the existing ones will be enriched more. It is clear that 50/50 will benefit the investor, but what about the creator?
I would prefer to leave the subject as it is, because there are many content authors who make an effort and will earn less.
Because... how many times do we see whales SEARCHING good content from authors with little SP and CURING it?

NO to 50/50 and YES to the people who work on the content they publish.

0
0
0.000
avatar

So im goin to write these short thingy, because i get really really angry. CMON Really , set to 50/50 from 75/25 Writers/Creators/Streamer get less for DO something and BOTS getting more for do NOTHING only being a bot. And Yes this is the way coming up but what will happens... People will stop creating new POSTS, so BOTS dont get enough to Vote, so they will start to Vote their own POSTS to gaiun the POWER they n want to have... This is the GRIMREAPER of the SYSTEM of STEEM/it . Its the complete wrong way how to handle it, they had to start to power the CREATORS not the BOTTING systems... but they fu**ed it up... i know at least a lot of people which start to power down now and going to leave this system. Im really sad because i loved this amazing THING STEEMIT when i joined but with HF 20 and upcoming HF 21 they destroyed it !!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for this your comment @bembelmaniac

I only just realized that I never thanked you. Have a great monday ahead :)

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well personaly I am fine with 50/50 rewards

Since I just got my SP up, and I am curating now quite alot

0
0
0.000
avatar

Probably people will still self vote...I hated this in the beginning, but a lot of orcas and dolphins told me to do so for growth purposes. We'll see ;)

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well, if authors upvoting themselves is a problem, just make a feature which does not allow them to upvote themselves.

I don't see why voting yourself is such a issue, its ok, just give them that leverage and leave, not a bg deal.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think the main issue that we all have to face is that only a few who really want to know and understand about the benefit of blockchain. Most are see it, including Steem as one of the fastest solution to get money and profit, they don't care about ethics, morals, even the purpose of the existence of blockchain. We have to accept the fact about it, most people don't care and that is why we have continuous problems and every changes that we all are trying o create will have only small impact.

I see it as a challenge. I wish more people educate about blockchain, not only about how to get money. It will not help us all to have a better world. Though it sounds naif and impossible to do, but to change people's mind and the way of thinking is not that easy. A lot of people are too stupid to be smart, and they are reluctant and got angry to be called stupid, because they are stupid.

Anyway, I do appreciate all kind of effort to make Steem much better. Pro and contra is only a way to create a better one and more. We need to always find a better way to stop people only thinking about money but thinking what can we get and do more with steem blockchain. It is a process, a long process. Be patient.

Regards from Indonesia.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think it will have a huge impact especially on bidbots since they would have to squeeze in more power to give returns or they would have to stop business in one way it would allow manual curators to earn more on the other hand like you said autoupvotes will start being abused as well

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the link and have a !BEER

0
0
0.000
avatar

The EIP will create incentives that are likely to increase both bid not usage and delegations to bid bots.

I believe the EIP could be fixed in that respect (while also attenuating part of the negative impact of some of the measures on new users and the potential to onboard new content creators) with a few simple changes, most described here.

One simple change missing, I think, is bringing down the dust level treshold from $0.020 (after curration) to $0.007 (or less).

I feel that without these fixes, the EIP lacks any kind of holistic attributes, and simple simulations will show the insentives created by the EIP will:

  • Hinder onboarding and with it ecconomic growth.
  • Increase bid not usage
  • Increase delegations to bid bots
0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @pibara

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

After all they can switch on auto-upvotes

I noted that on my #utopian-io posting. They attract quite a few upvotes from user who I suspect never actually read the posting as some upvotes come in quicker than you can read the post.

I can only guess those curators don't know of the 15 minute limit. And after said 15 minutes there is a huge wave of upvotes. Anga

My impression is that Steemit is turning into ponzi scheme.

Maybe it was one all along. Time will tell.

would HF21 help or destroy bidbots?

Hope dies last. So those who, in the past, put their hope on bitbots will continue to do so. So bitbots will, for a while, make a huge profit.

PS: Quite a lot of curators don't know how votes work. Beating my on drum I like to point out Part 9 of my tutorial:

https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@krischik/using-steem-api-with-ruby-part-9
´
And here screenshot at the end:

Three out of of nine votes were worthless. And that is normal.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hi @crypto.piotr, I will give my 2 steems on this, sure. ;)
The proposed change to the rewards split does mean that self upvoting is less profitable, since more of the rewards are split among a higher number of people and thus also stake. It does not really provide a guarantee that people won't continue to just sit and upvote themselves, however.

Since curation rewards increase as the community gets behind a post, in theory it is possible to earn more from good curation under this system and that is a good thing for the network and post quality. If there is a strong culture of curation then that is a good thing for stopping bots too.

The downsides are present too, though, of course - in that bot operators will just adjust what they do to fit in with the new rules. They may start paying out curation rewards - whereas currently they keep them.

I made a suggestion months ago to implement changes to User Interfaces so that posts that are boosted with bid bots are either (optionally) hidden completely from people's feeds or are adjusted to have the bidbot reward component removed from the calculation that is used to determine their position in the feeds. Each user could opt in/out of this and even choose which bots and accounts they personally want to have effected.
I also provided a method for Steemit inc. to use their ninja mined tokens to force bid bots out of the market.

I think that these two options are sufficient to prevent the problems of the bid bots without needing to change the curation/author split.

It is not possible to know exactly what is going to happen if this feature goes live - but I would take the middle ground of being open to experimentation without going the whole way, by opting for a 33.33% and 66.66% split - then seeing where that goes.

I am also concerned about the downvote pool changes, I consider those to be a potential nightmare due to the total lack of social skills held by some of the whales.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @ura-soul

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I already wrote a very lengthy post on the topic of HF21. You can read it here

Most of the top 20 witnesses are not regular content creators. They do have various ways of generating income from the content creators efforts like curation bots and bid bots.

Some of them are engaged in trying to convince the community that content creators are overpaid. It's a narrative designed to gain them additional income. IMO the changes have nothing to do with the longterm benefit of the platform and everything to do with their income.

When decent content creators get tired of decreasing return on their time and leave, there wont be much to attract people to even look at the platform and all it has to offer. That is the longterm loss we're looking at.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @shadowspub

I will read your post right away. Thx for sharing link.

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I do not know what to expect with this hardfork, we all want steem to increase its value, and today with the sidechains we have the possibility to perform backtests and see how the token economy behaves. I think any change in steem should be tested on sidechains before it is implemented.

The way it looks at steem publishing platforms seems to be the kind of creator written platform for content for other content creators, not for consumers. And every content platform must foster the consumption of the content that is created in it. I'm not really worried about the bidbot owners, they are interested stakeholders in the development of this blockchain and the economy that revolves around it as well as all of us.

My biggest concern is the traffic that the front-ends generate for those who consume the content that is created here. This hard-fork can be good or bad, we can not predict the future, but we have how to test the changes and decide for the best. If steem is much more than its content creation front ends, I think devs can create ways for steem to circulate in other ways as well, look at other blockchain projects and develop solutions in which the steem can be served from several ways, like bat for example.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @guifaquetti

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I fully agree with the concerned expressed by @crypto.piotr on 50/50 issue. In steem environment, upvotes are everything. Whoever can exploit its system, earns huge profit. 50/50 system would discourage the content creators while it cannot solve the problem of self voting.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @akdx

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are always welcome dear @crypto.piotr. You are such a nice person whom I respect.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hello there Crypto.Piotr ! i just got your meme and was intrigued to read about this HF21 with the goal to understand what is going on on Steemit. I was in a long pause away of Steemit something like around 6 months bcos of my deep disappointment in the scheme how this system is working and where the money is going. Right now I'm trying to invest to my posts with the power of the OCDB bot - initially, i hate this idea to pay to bots with the goal to make my posts more "trending" in terms of payment instead of to make it more interesting in terms of the content inside these posts. I don't know how long i will continue this game, cos i finished almost all my Steem and SBD already :-)) This way is wrong but as i know - another way is just to leave this place, no matter what HF we - 20 or 21.
I really understand how the situation with "50/50" is confusing.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @victorbz

Would you perhaps consider using "enter" from time to time? To separate blocks of texts? It would make it much easier to read.

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

yes, I can but why? :-))

my text was too short and everything about the same theme. It's really interesting how completely ppl (sorry for saying this) lost their ability to read some "long" texts" in one time. Mostly I use paragraphs when I change the topic of conversation, not just because it's the right time to add another "enter".

Same on Whatsapp - some people write me messages and use the enter after every two-three words - this sounds like warnings or alerts and I hate to get this amount of notifications and finally someone wanted to write: "hey, howru, I have some question, write me when you can"

never mind - severed my text to a few parts, hope this helps you
Victor

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was asked to post my view on HF21 50/50 which is going to be introduced.

As a contest host, I am not here to make a profit for myself. What I earn goes as contest prizes. If my earnings suffer because of changes then the contest prizes will suffer. In my view, entries will drop off and if this is significant, it won't be worth holding contests that are a valued way of winning steem for some.

You speak about investors being paid more. I was considering investing in Steemit like my friend @organduo. Now, I am putting that on hold to see what happens with HF21.

I agree with you about bidbots. They will still be frequently used and will rake it in.

BTW, there are other social media that pay authors. One example is Tuetego that pays in normal currency.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Even if rewards in Steem will be reduced, we will still get rewards in PAL. And many other tokens by the way which are yet to come. Hope you have claimed your PAL airdrop yet. The price of PAL is rising fast and it has a good chance of catching up to Steem. People are powering up more PAL every day. Do not fear for the future of your contests...

If you think HF21 will benefit investors, remember that I am one. In which case our contest prizes shouldn't suffer.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for your reassurance :) You are very kind.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @deemarshall

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your message, so I read your really interesting post and I should say you have more than right.

I have one more point whom you don't touched.

Everybody who have at least 5.000 Steempower can create new steemit account for free and I saw people here you saved nearly 100 steemit accounts.

So it's very easy to get full reward like before. You just open second account transfer their half of your steempower and than start that both accounts vote eachother.

You are owner of both accounts so you get all rewards.

In every case this change will be a benefit for all big accounts here at steemit and the small account will be the looser and maybe with some post in future not even reach the payout limitation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

very interesting conclusion ... before I wanted to give you a thumbs up for your efforts regarding HF21, and I think that something you describe about it is not a mistake of your thinking. I agree what you say and of course we have proven it equally, abuse is indeed a great opportunity for content providers that are not perfectly controlled. everyone can do it and everyone can be so easy to divert.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @littleboys-faiz

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

when you invite me, for me it is a sincere intention, and when you do not reply to comments, I feel that is normal, because so many comments you have to face, I understand @crypto.piort

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm not sure how I feel about this, too many pros and cons on either side, will be interesting to see how this plays out. I guess if its a disaster we can always fork again.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yikes, This is something that hasn't crossed my mind. I think it could realistically go either way. But in the grand scheme of things, People will always do what benefits them the most.

Even though the auto botter could be abused. Maybe this would be a good thing to a certain degree, Because it would require people to use their votes? Not everyone wants to create content. So leaving them out has never been good. But I also noticed that people have been largely inactive which makes it difficult to get votes.
This could change that.
I also see what you are saying about a ponzi scheme. But to be fair, A lot of investments pay in a similar matter. You make money with little effort, The more money you have, The more you make. because you are putting up a certain degree of risk.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @kaylinart

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Maybe in the short term we will also see higher payouts as authors too.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @crypto.piotr, I agree with your opinion, it looks like this change will only benefit curators than content writers, but if this change is indeed needed with a reason for long-term growth and for the stability of the more important platforms, I think it doesn't matter.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @alpayasteem

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for your invitation to the discussion. It took me an hour to get through and read all the posts.

Google translate from Czech
Each of the discussing parties has strong arguments. One and the other can be understood.
As for my point of view, I'm about to do this:
The authors of the content will be reduced with the proposed modification. It is a question of whether it will be to the benefit or to the detriment of the platform. Many shitpost authors will move their initiative to curatorship. Maybe we get rid of looking at posts with one photo for dozens of SBDs.
The only thing I don't really understand is a downvote. What is it for? If I don't like the post, I don't vote for it and it's done for me. I rather understand the downvote as an unfair destruction of competition.
It is soon to evaluate what the changes will bring. This will show the time and willingness of users to keep this platform moving and of good quality.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @bucipuci

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

One of the often overlooked parts of all this 50/50 split is that in HF21 there is also a proposal to take from all rewards a part to pay for something that I really do not understand, other than a bit of all rewards will be used to pay for something and that it will come from all pools and people, from witness pay, curation, and authors. I do not understand it because it was only talked about as a side note it seemed in most post about the EIP and HF21.

The other thing that people are ignoring or have completely forgotten about is the ability of any of the dApps to charge a beneficiary fee for using it, such as the cut d-tube takes from peoples rewards, thus lowering the content producers rewards even more.

I know the arguments people will give are yes but how much do you get from sharing on facebook or youtube. If it is the goal of the investors to have eveyone return to facebook and youtube then they are doing a fine job of driving people away, and keeping them away from steem blockchain.

The mention of Palnet above is pretty disingenuous in my opinion, it should have been noted that with palnet even though it is a 50/50 reward system, there are two types of payment regular Steem tokens and the new Pal tokens, so while it is 50/50 split there are two different paychecks so to speak for the same content.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @shadowmask

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I completely disagree with this proposed, 50/50 rewards split!

In fact, I would want to go in the other direction. Those who create content deserve the vast bulk of the reward. I would put the split at 80/20 or even 90/10 towards creators.

I sometimes spend hours creating content. Researching, writing, proofreading, image creation, video editing, et al. A curator is a much more passive participant. They MIGHT spend only a few minutes reading said content and that somehow entitles them to 50% of the rewards?! No! Absolutely not. I cannot agree to this. I dedicate a lot of time to enhancing the network with good and thoughtful content and this new split proposal makes me viscerally angry.

This is outrageously unfair and this is guaranteed to act as a disincentive towards creation! Creators do the content heavy lifting! Curators are important, but their participation is not worth half the reward for the work I put in. This would effectively tax my efforts and when you tax something you destroy it.

If you want to decrease self-voting, then punish self-voting. If you want to get investors, create better and easier to use software. Go and innovate. If you want to decrease bid-bots, then come up with a solution that does that, but DO NOT think that just because someone reads our work, comments and re-steems entitles them to half our reward. It will not make the network better, it will make the network worse.

It will make it worse be making the rewards inherently unfair. Curators have not earned the privilege of that much reward. This is not a share and share alike platform or world. I've earned my place on the network. I've invested a lot of time and actual capital into it and if you take 25% of my rewards away to fix problems that aren't even the big I will be inclined to stop creating.

The top earner is @crypto.piotr according to https://steempeak.com/steem/@steem-data/steem-statistics-16-06-2019

Why do people merely commenting on this thread - that he created - think they deserve half the rewards? I don't think I do. I mean, could you imagine a world where authors who write real world novels were forced to share 50% of their earnings with readers? How unbelievably stupid and greedy.

The biggest problem the network has is not the rewards system.

It is... EASE OF USE! Self-voting only accounts for 6.4% of total votes according to the same source cited above https://steempeak.com/steem/@steem-data/steem-statistics-16-06-2019

EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON... I've gotten to sign up became frustrated because of confusion and an inappropriate amount of Steem Power for interactions on the network. They don't like that they can't vote a lot during their first day or two. It frustrates their efforts to explore the network and they GIVE UP. Facebook and the other horrible networks got one thing right. EASE OF USE! They're so easy a literal moron could use them.

If you gift newbies more, initial SP, they will be able to participate more.

Passive interactions with the Steem Network need to be made more effortless for Curators, not more profitable! Good grief.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling very passionately emphatic about this change. I like your idea of going 80/20, but again, I'd need to see stats and proof that it would benefit. More SP is necessary for curators, that's for sure. "more effortless not more profitable!" YAS! I am so opposed to this and I feel like the Elites of Steemit decided this on their own without consulting creators, only consulting curators. It makes me feel so poopooed as a creator. We are not going to be compensated with double the upvotes or anything like that, we are going to lose so much of what we can earn on Steemit for the quality content we create. And them deciding on their own this change, makes me feel this is a centralised dictatorship where the whales dictate everything and care not for the smaller fish in the sea.

Good grief indeed. How did they decide this without taking us into consideration? Oh wait, they didn't!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @distantsignal

They MIGHT spend only a few minutes reading said content and that somehow entitles them to 50% of the rewards?! No! Absolutely not. I cannot agree to this.

You nailed it! :/

If you want to decrease self-voting, then punish self-voting.

Actually self-voting could be switched off by Steemit Inc.

ps.
Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for inviting - and alerting me - to this development. The community and witnesses need a much better structure for debating these huge changes. I am not satisfied that the witnesses are doing enough due diligence and community outreach in a clear manner. Feel free to message me again about these sorts of discussions.

Posted using Partiko iOS

0
0
0.000
avatar

Great point.

From my point of view, Steemit seemed attractive as an author who found it difficult to earn royalty checks.

However, as time goes on, and Steemit becomes more "mainstream", the same thing happens on Steemit.

For the most part I've already stopped blogging.

As an investor in the platform my engagement has already changed to adopt this type of policy. I just auto Upvote and comment from time to time.

Only I hope bid-bots remain in play as they remain the highest source of ROI.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @cyemela

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you @crypto.piotr for making me aware of this discussion. I have been on Steemit for 16 months and in that time I have watched the majority of my new content creator friends give up and leave. Yes, I occasionally ask myself if it's worth it. It has only been since I received a large delegation in April that I have felt like I'm making progress. If it's believed that moving to a 50:50 split is desirable, why take the risk in one shot? Why not first move to 70:30 as a test for unforeseen consequences?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @kansuze

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I really don't think this change should be implemented alone @crypto.piotr. I think other measures should be added to make it more impactful. I don't know what these should be, but if the problem is that people self-uptvote, Steemit can change the way the platform works so that no user can self-upvote.

Maybe users should be rewarded just for being investors holders. I mean... In our wallet is the SAVINGS field. Maybe users who have Steem in there should have a % of rewards depending on the amount of Steem they're holding there, and maybe that should be like a amount of Steem that users are indirectly delegating to the Steemit account to be use to vote the content creators in general.

I don't know, we need to start thinking in new ways to work with the Steem on the blockchain.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @camiloferrua

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

My understanding , like you said that mean.
so I feel you are right!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't know what these ever going changes mean but I hope it is all for the best. I hope there is a better way to approach abusers but people adapt and sooner or later they will find new ways to cheat the system. If we are to move forward to the 50/50 rewarding, there should be a ceiling up to how much there should be that kind of sharing. How about those who are earning not even 1 on their posts? The author should get 100% of the earnings instead but then again that depends on what the content is. We try to be as straight but there will always be cheaters.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @leeart

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

It's all good 👍👍

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

50/50 = PENALISATION FOR CONTENT CREATORS

How is this going to help quality content? We have to write so much, so often, such quality stuff, and we get so little from it all. I am always grateful to everyone who upvotes me, no matter the value of their upvote, but one thing that always motivated me to STAY on Steemit and to PROMOTE Steemit, was that I FELT like I was VALUED.

Now it feels like "sorry your hard work isn't good enough for us anymore.' CREATORS ARE BEING PUNISHED. That's what this is. Plain and simple. This is NOT about creators of valued content. You are pushing us to the sideline.

We are NOT going to be getting more upvotes just because it's 50/50 now. We are going to be getting less for our hard work. /slowclap Great work, Steemit, way to go to make a girl feel valued and important on your platform.

How much more sweat are we going to have to put into the community and platoform. How often are we going to have to post to compensate. I can't compensate, I have bunrout, other people have jobs, children. How many upvotes will we need more in order to be able to compensate for the LOSS. Because it's a loss, that's for sure.

I've been very vocal about this in the past and I'm with @crypto.piotr on this that this is a BAD idea. It feels like Steemit is poopooing on content creators. WE have to suffer because some people take advantage. How is that fair? How is that going to stop those who take advantage and cheat the system. There will always be those who cheat the system.

Is there a guarantee that we are going to get the necessary amount of upvotes MOREin compensation. Because if not I am very opposed to this.

WHO DECIDED THIS? WHY WAS THE COMMUNITY NOT CONSULTED?

I thought Steemit was decentralised and not governed by Elite parties.

If Steemit goes ahead on this it makes Steemit a DICTATORSHIP! Is it then a platform I want to continue to support? How many GOOD content creators are going to LEAVE Steemit because it DOES NOT CARE about its creators.

This idea has earned one of my infamous Steem-poos. He's happy here, but he should be crying lol
Gosh, I feel so unappreciated right now. I know there are many here who DO appreciate me and who upvote my content often. I love and appreciate every one of you. I just feel unappreciate by the platform itself. We don't run it, it's not a platform of the people at all. It's a dictatorship, dictated by the Elites, just like the centralised government, and we have no say whatsoever, it's just an illusion. Thanks for breaking my spirit Steemit. I'm losing faith in you.

Oh, and edit: I keep asking to see that hard proof of how this will benefit, NUMBERS' GRAPHS, STATS. NO ONE has provided that for me. Until I see stats that prove me wrong, I will be opposed to this.
Steem Poo Emoji (small).png

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @binkyprod

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sure thing. It's a very engaging topic, this new change, and we're all quite passionate about it, everyone with their stance and opinions. Being able to share freely is one of the things I love about this platform, even if what I'm sharing is distaste in a change for this platform. It's a sign I care 😁

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm also an author on Steem so this 50/50 switch would affect me as well, however I'm not so much concerned about it. Compared to other blogging and vlogging systems, I'm still getting paid more. As an author, I'm more focus on the product (my content) rather than how much money it will bring me, I'm playing on the long run: the more quality content I have, the more readership I will build and that's when money will come into play. Steem is still young so I think focusing on the financial aspect is too early.

We can't really predict how this will affect the whole user base globally but I believe it is worth the try and this can still be disabled in the future with another HF anyway.

A 50/50 split also means curators will receive more. Curators are those who you money by upvoting your content so I'm OK with them getting more and this might attract more new users in the future.

I believe we need to be "Agile" with how we go with the development of Steem so we need to keep implementing solutions, test them, modify them and so on. If we can be responsive and deliver quickly then we can adapt and make the product better. This is why we need more developers from the community involved in the development of the Condenser and the blockchain software.

However, I would like to see the 50/50 split and the SPS features isolated into separate HF so that we can launch them independently.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @quochuy

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

For me as a creator it seems i may lose here. Its already hard to be seen and growth is very slow. Iam here now for a few months and i have about 100 people apreciating my content. I can hope that the hubs share my content more and i get double the reach. Is that so i may be happy. But iam not sure. Time will tell. If people just act the same i will be on the losing end of things. Also i dont think that selfvoting will stop. To be honest I would continue doing so. Yet there is enough good content to also vote on.

My hope! Stayes with hubs creating reach for creators. They hopefully have more motivation to share good content. So we dont get double the reach but may be even better curated content. Right now iam relaxed - its nothing i will have much of an influence on i guess.

Again - Time will tell!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @g-shot

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey Piotr,

I TOTALLY agree with you. 100%! Personaly, I've never had any issues with self-upvoting, especially when the author does create good content. This proposal will benefit those who invest without creating content (mainly for upvoting) but take away from those who create content, including those who invest to do so. Also, I'm getting confused. Wasn't Steemit created to be a social media blockchain for rewarding content creators? Investors' reward should be expected when the token increases in value, which should be a natural result of the platform increasing in value... an event I don't have any issues with either.

Cheers!
Peter

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @petermarie

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Honestly, as a content creator and at around 3 posts a week, I can hope to make much more with author reward than curating with the present system, more even than if my curation rewards doubled so yeah, I am mad at HF21.

If self upvoting is such a problem why not take it away?

The kind of price action generated from wealth gained in this 50/50 system is looking ugly to me. Those whale have temporary skin in the game and when they are done siphoning value off the social fabric of this place, they will leave but an empty carcass behind.

Authors are the ones who have real skin in the game because our blogs have sentimental value. People sticking to Steemit out of principle as opposed to greed is why we are still around after the bear market.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @edouard

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

If self upvoting is such a problem why not take it away?

Such a simple solution, isn't it? :)

Those whale have temporary skin in the game and when they are done siphoning value off the social fabric of this place, they will leave but an empty carcass behind.

Very true. I see this system as "milking the cow" as long as it's alive.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Personally, I curious to see how things go on for the common users but I think this will have little or no effects on bid bots operations.

Bid bots currently consider the 75/25 nature in their operations and offers. So, they will simply have adjust this and provide a ROI based on 50/50 since they will be earning more from curation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Honestly, I don't believe it will change anything related to bidbots. Currently, bidbots charge a fee and offer a certain percentage of upvote value over that, many times its only 5% or even less. All bidbots have to do is adjust their fee rate in order to keep running their service. Really, there are a lot of people that use bidbots unprofitably, and they don't care because its just another way of purchasing promotion.

My largest concern is not about the 50/50 split but the downvote change. Downvotes are very problematic, because they create a negative atmosphere and ganging up. Imagine the cruel power it gives well funded political groups, religious groups and all the many diverse communities that dislike some other community. They can literally rush over to the other community to hurt them with downvotes. Its a terrible concept...

I am genuinely thinking about finding out how many people on Steem would be willing to move over to a Steem fork that doesn't have downvotes. I just don't believe downvotes belong on Steem and the future that can be created by Steem.

As for the 50/50 change, well, its never even truly been 75/25. When you go to steemdb.com you find the rates are quite different:

steem distribution averages.PNG

Who get the "interest"? Its the people that have their STEEM powered up as SP. Those are the same people as the curators... This means that curators are already getting 32.90% of the reward pool, just for clicking a little upvote button a few times a day.

The problem with Steem is not bidbots, these are actually effective services creating a valuable aspect of the economy. Bidbots get blamed for the state of Steem, but its never been the bots. The bots serve a purpose of promoting those that are willing to pay for the service. This means that rather than being so-called "leechers" they actually provide a utility for STEEM/SBD as a currency. Thanks to bidbots, we can actually buy something of value with our crypto! We can buy promotional services.

Then what is the problem? The problem is that no one is truly creating a sophisticated outreach program. Steem whales want paid to give out accounts, while blockchains like Energi are giving out $400 in their cryptocurrency for free!

Check it out here for $400: Give me 100 Energi!!!

Steem is a social media blockchain and yet Steemit Inc. is pretty much the worst social media presence in Crypto. Even JSEcoin has done a better job... That's embarrassing! Is anyone embarrassed about that? They should be...

But hey, that's okay, because...

The Hobo Media team is gifting everybody in this discussion a free 50 HBO! :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @hobo.media

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Honestly, I don't believe it will change anything related to bidbots.

Personally I think that bidbots will be growing way faster now.

Downvotes are very problematic, because they create a negative atmosphere and ganging up.

Very good point. I didn't really think about it that much. Thx for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks to bidbots, we can actually buy something of value with our crypto! We can buy promotional services.

You nailed it. This is exactly the way I see bidbots. Not as a way of cheating the system, but as a promotional tool.

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was invited to give my view on things. Well in my humble opinion its a 50/50 chance to be a good thing. For me as creator i may earn less right the next day it happends. I post every day, at least when i can, so it will have an emidiate impact on what happends at my wallet. For sure. If the people who love my content then upvote more it may everage out over time. My guess would be thats not the case. So only if the big curators share more of my content it will compensate by getting more traction and reach. That would be perfect. Again i dont see that happening so easy nor fast. My reach here is very limited and its very hard to reach new users throughout Steem. At least thats what it feels like. So even though i just hope it works out for the good i dont see how it can, from the start. There will be a very quick shift to something i cant predict. Iam not long enough here to understand it all in full.

Creating is part of me, there will be more content to share and i hope the 'dip' will not mean the end of Steem. So i am here to stay and if more people find my content in the future and i find some loyal friends here that are not just about the upvote farming here, it will be come a more or less social network. The content i create takes a lot of work, i know i can not expect to be compensated equally for the work i put in. Same accounts for people who write or draw. Either there is a self motivation to do it anyhow or not. Steem is not here to just pay for your work. Do not make a mistake here.
Lets see what happends and cry later ;-) or celebrate. I think if it does not work i guess we can correct the mistakes again.

Yet I do see light at the end of the tunnel 8)

Belgium-LPU_2-(26)-LR-2000.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @gunnarheilmann

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for inviting me reading this comment, @crypto.piotr!

It may be that the 50-50 rewarding regime will not solve the self-voting circles and the bid-bots, but we'll see!

Meanwhile, several tokens that reward interactivity among users, such as MSTK by @fedesox, are growing well: have you already created your own on @steem-engine?

🐶 HARF HARF! 🐾

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @holydog

I'm glad to see that you accepted my invitation and you enjoyed this publication.

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

ps. what is harf harf?

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Just read you message, thanks for letting me know. After reading this blog, the upcoming new rules do not seem to be in favor of content producers. Isnt there any way to stop this? I am not sure if I understand all what is implied, as my crypto jargon isnt that great.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for reaching out to me for my thoughts on these important subjects of our time.

Self Votes

I believe self voting should be automatic. In other words, when an Author writes a post, there should be a slider near the POST button to determine the self vote %. If 0%, then no self vote is cast; however, if you set, for example 50%, your account will upvote your post after 6.5 days. Why? Because investing in one's own ideas or projects is in alignment with the entrepreneurial spirit. When the true entrepreneur is bringing his or her idea into the world, they are looking to offer it for the benefit of others, and self. Often, entrepreneurs put all of their personal funds into a project because they are the first to believe in themselves and what they are creating. But what they create is ideally intended to be of service to others. Hence, my reasoning that the self vote should be scheduled for 6.5 days, because it would add to the curation pool, adding value to those who upvoted you in the previous days. It's a win/win. Otherwise, we should simply eliminate the self vote.

50/50 Curation

This is fair to me. The Steem community does not consist of 75% Authors, and Authors should not be given a greater role on this blockchain, because the blockchain is maintained by thousands of witnesses, hundreds of developers, thousands of curator, hundreds of investors and last, but definitely LEAST, Authors. It's true that Authors create content for the community, but Authors become irrelevant without readers. And I've seen excellent Authors walk away from Steem because there was no following. 50/50 curation will also increase the number of Authors being curated. I presently support about 200 content creators; if my curation rewards are to double, I will add another 200!!! This creates more distribution.

Downvotes

What is the real value of downvoting? Why should we have the right to interfere with what a person earns from what they create? When have you ever not watched a video on YouTube because of the amount of dislikes it received? Can we truly demonstrate that downvoting has helped Steem?

If I place my vote for an Author, which adds a monetary value to their post, why should someone else be allowed to cancel out a part of what I've wanted to give that Author? If I were to pull my money out of the bank and place it in a bowl, together with others, to give to someone because we like what that person has done or created, how dare someone come and take money out of that bowl to give back to the bank!!! I would go ballistic, and forgive me, but might actually hurt the dude!

To be honest, I'm afraid to downvote for fear of retaliation! And I know I'm not alone! I don't have a lot of Steem Power, nor do I get a lot of votes for my posts. And there are moments in which I would like to hit the downvote button to show discontent with what I've read, or a person's behavior, but I don't!

And this is where I believe the real value of the downvote should be focused. It should be a tool for the expression of discontent, and not a determination of whether the Author, or his posts, have value. Who are we to decide what others should like or dislike? The only reason a downvote should take shares out of the reward pool is to counter a self-vote. In this way, you are directly challenging the Author, and not interfering with the decisions made by curators.

Dear @crypto.piotr, thanks again for reaching out to me for my thoughts. I enjoy these kinds of discussions. Feel free in the future to simply tag me in your posts or comments, rather than transfer funds with a memo, unless that method is easier for you.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @famigliacurione

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

dear Piotr,
golos.io already tried to implement 50-50 schema. to be brief: it didnt bring in any desired improvements, but instead (together with some other reasons) just spoiled and ruined down the value for Golos tokens. shit remains shit, whenever you name it.

Investors will be rewarded for doing really nothing, but pretty much for holding their STEEM (and auto-upvoting any kind of content).

I never upvote automatically, always manually and check the post (that doesnt mean I automatically read all the longreads, tho). (well, except the qurator posts). I am quite new to steemit, and to whole blockhain deal, but already figured out how important a good curation is, and how much steemit turned into a platform where only bots talk to you, and how much you need to play engagement games to grow, and

this new algorythm means more shit!

who need it, I wonder? probably the ones who are in it for the money, who want just to implemet a New Order to simplify moneymaking with their Giant Stacks. maybe steemit dont need 'authors' and 'content' after all? well, a few more iterations like this, and authors will off. thats for sure. no creator (unless he's a creator, not a soulless content shit-generator) wanna deal this shit. its just a humiliation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @qwerrie

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

golos.io already tried to implement 50-50 schema.

That's something I never knew. Thanks for sharing. When did they introduce this 50/50 schema?

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

@crypto.piotr,
golos.io had a lot of other problems (users gaming the system, hacking its weaknesses etc). you may find intresting this text (its in russian, hope that will not be a big problem).

as for the 50-50 reward.schema, if i understand it correctly, it was rolled out in HF19 in december 2018 (more details, in russian)

i dont think my comments are that great / informative.. but at least they are emotional ;)

ps. have you seen this article? sounds optimistic!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @crypto.piotr you asked for my opinion regarding the coming HF21 and your comment on @gandhibaba´s post so here we are.
I´m not sure about if you looked in my profil before (I guess, or hope so), if I heard the first time from that a few days ago it was like a sledge hammer what hits my head, I thought I must have had some serious difficulties with th eunderstanding of this issue.

I couldn't stop thinking about consequences of this vital change. After all moving from "75/25" reward model to "50/50" is a huge deal.

First of all I agrree fully with that it is a huge deal but let´s see what´s next.

In other words: content creators doing actual work will have it even harder to be rewarded. In order to get any rewards they need to create content.

YES that´s also effecting me and my posts (like all of us who´s posting here), and this is not the sort of posts what I will call abuse.

At the same time curators do not need to do any work. After all they can switch on auto-upvotes and simply enjoy growing twice as fast.

This for sure is something what I can´t accept like you wrote it, I only will accept it for the curationbots, but please think about that also:
I am one of the curators from the German Steem-Bootcamp and there we read manualy all posts in the TAG GERMAN and when one of us means one is worth to get an upvote its done. This process takes at least 2 to 4 hours from my very small daily freetime, and its all for the community we are voting with an community account and use this to boost the community nobody from us had any gains except the votes we get from other curators from the team.
We don´t vote our own content (I specially not even with my own account, except the vote what comes from the trail I don´t see a chance to change or avoid that).
So not everthing is black and white there are some shades as well, like you possibly can see now.

But at least I mean just like you the HF21 makes everything worse for the authors and it opens the door for the Bots to plunder the pools, and nobody is there to avoid that sh... :(
Zwischenlinie-2 für Steem-Post 940x120.png
with sunny greetings from Andalusia

Don Thomas

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @krischik

Thank you for accepting my invitation.

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

This process takes at least 2 to 4 hours from my very small daily freetime

Wow. Respect! How long have you been doing it already?

HF21 makes everything worse for the authors and it opens the door for the Bots to plunder the pools, and nobody is there to avoid that sh

You nailed it :(

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Tank you @crypto.piotr for the reply, I´ve been doing this for now more than 10 month.
Wish you also a great week and a lot of fun with the climbing prices from the rest of the cryptos ;)
Zwischenlinie-2 für Steem-Post 940x120.png
with sunny greetings from Andalusia

Don Thomas

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ciao dear @crypto.piotr! Thank you so much for your memos, links and Steems - I just found your messages now, and am navigating slowly through your discussions - a lot of this is still over my head, and I'm not finding Steemit effortless to use, but am persevering! Beautiful day to you, Clare

0
0
0.000
avatar

The main reason I don't like the switch, is because Steemit came into being saying that they were there for the content creators. It was a case of "tired of getting ripped off by all the other platforms? Well come to Steemit and get rewarded".

Now they are just treating us like everyone else. Someone clicking a button is seen as the same value as someone creating content. Also Steemit now make money from those awful Google ads on content that I was paid out (or not) weeks, months, or even years ago.

To be honest the whole thing is putting me off this platform, and is why I hardly post on here anymore, and rarely bother checking my messages.

Cg

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think bid-bots are having some problems because not many of them stayed profitable to those who bid minimum bid or less than some certain amount of STEEM.. in many cases, due to the 50/50 split, you are lucky if you break even on some of the bots..

There is one bot I know of that remains profitable, I won't mention it here because it will attract the attention of the serial downvoter trails.. which I don't agree with that either btw.. I consider auto-downvoting to be abuse, since you have no idea what you're downvoting/punishing.. discriminating only because the post received a bid-bot vote is irresponsible. So those that use it are just as abusive as the 'bid-botters'.

I have definitely received more curation rewards. I disagree that comments shouldn't be upvoted and I wish that movement never started. I understand the reasoning but at the same time, people have to remember that your vote is only worth less than it was worth before the HF.. What if a user joined after the HF? They have nothing to compare their vote too, so to them their reward value is normal!

Sadly, there was so much misinformation and negativity before the HF even happened that noone even gave it a chance once it did.
People just hopped on the 'no vote comments' bandwagon because that's what they think they are supposed to do, I don't even think half the people understand the curve and are just echoing misinformation and moaning about their rewards instead of focusing on finding out what works now and putting in the effort to do the work.

I became active a few weeks before the HF, and my intro post was posted before the HF but it paid out after the HF so it's rewards were adjusted.. However, I still have 0 complaints as I'm making decent earnings for how long I've been here and how newb I am to blogging. My account is constatnly growing so I can't complain about my vote worth since it's always bigger than last week..

The universe will manifest what it thinks you want.. if you keep entertaining negative thoughts, that is what the universe will think you want and it will give you negativity.

*The word 'you' used throughout this comment has been used more in a general context and not meant towards any one specific person or group.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Dear @gandhibaba

It's me again (my second comment)

Personally, I agree that a 50/50 curation model will indeed give more powers to the whales because they will earn more. However, this is a deserved power, deserved because the whales are investors.

You're overestimating investors and their importance. Let's imagine some Masternode which is providing dividents to investors. For doing what? Just for holding token on their wallet.

Price of such a token would surely grow as long as there would be more fresh investors. But that price wouldn't reflect any sort of value. Because no value would be created.

Right now there is less and less content created on Steemit. value of this platform is decreasing. And cutting rewards of those people is not a long term game.

You're seeing things from very positive angle. It's almost like "praying for rain" (no offence my friend). I see same topic from different angle. Angle of people who would like to abuse this system for rapid gains. And opportunities will be enormous.

Surely 50/50 doesn't encourage to power down. STEEM may have a great bull run, but once price will drop then show will be over.

And that could do some magic to the price of Steem in the long run.

Again: those who only think about financial gains will surely enjoy great times.

However if price of Steem would increase to such a levels, then we would witness slow death of this platform. New users would never spent that much money to power up to at least 40-50SP (Without it using Steemit doesnt make sense at all. Resouce Credit limits and restrictions are just insane hostile to new users).

ps. Would you mind if I would share this publication with wider audience? I really would love to hear what other people have to say.

Cheers
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

If the price will turn to positive than for sure people will not buy steem i agree with it. BUT! They can start to create content😉 so they can earn.

Maybe i am also too much positive minded but i do believe it will be q good change.

( if not than i am mistake ) 😂

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

They can start to create content😉 so they can earn.

Tried that one. Doesn't work. Most of the reward pool goes to the wales and their bots. What really is needed is the activation of the 3rd »√x« reward curve which would reduce the power of the wales.

In case you don't know, there are three rewards curves build into the system. Simplified: x², x and √x.

x² increases the power of the wales and was active in the beginning.
x is neutral and currently active.
√x decreases the poser of the wales.

The last one is needed to support new users but that will never happen. The witnesses won't curb themselves. Instead there is discussion to reactivate x² which would be disastrous.

If x² was reactivated I would probably power down and HOLR until there is is a good time to sell.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Doesnt work because everyone sell they vote.
But with 50/50 maybe it will not worth. But it will worth to currate.

Lets see how it will goes. I am positive right now.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @krischik

What really is needed is the activation of the 3rd »√x« reward curve which would reduce the power of the wales.

I realized that some people are simply afraid that whales will break their large accounts into thousands smaller ones.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

@crypto.piotr has set 2.000 STEEM bounty on this post!
logo_for-light-bg_1000.png

Bounties let you earn rewards without the need for Steem Power. Go here to learn how bounties work.

Earn the bounty by commenting what you think the bounty creator wants to know from you.

Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.

Happy Rewards Hunting!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Congratulations to the following winner(s) of the bounty!

  • @lordnigel has earned 0.577 STEEM. 0.576 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @ksteem has earned 0.098 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.002 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @thecryptodrive has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @mickvir has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @jackramsey has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @jadams2k18 has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @alpayasteem has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @ervin-lemark has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @mytechtrail has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @travoved has earned 0.097 STEEM. 0.096 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @khussan has earned 0.092 STEEM. 0.091 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.001 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @jphamer1 has earned 0.06 STEEM. 0.048 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.012 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @ketcom has earned 0.055 STEEM. 0.052 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.003 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @eturnerx has earned 0.053 STEEM. 0.048 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.005 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @pibara has earned 0.05 STEEM. 0.048 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.002 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
  • @yashny has earned 0.05 STEEM. 0.048 STEEM from the creator of the bounty and 0.002 STEEM from the community!
    Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.
0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @gandhibaba,
@crypto.piotr invited me to this post.
Here is my declaration about reward change.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@bidesign/shitpost-is-a-shitpost
#no5050

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thx for sharing link to this publication with us @bidesign

It's a bit to old to upvote but I will read it right before bedtime and I will gladly learn what's your view on HF21.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @gandhibaba, i got on your post because @crypto.piotr invited me to watch the post and i think this time steemit will make such crash that coin value will be worth of usd cents.
I was thinking HF20 was the worse, but on this trolls social network everything can be done worse.
Why i should pay 50% to curator?
What he will do more than nothing are doing right now?
@magicdice scammed a lot of people in wonderful steem blockchain and no one witness or curator try to do something to stop robbers, because basically they are robbers and this modification it confirm it!!!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @intellihandling

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I’ve got mixed feelings about the coming fork. I can potentially see your perspective however I don’t entirely see this as a great thing. Sure we need investors to come in but do we need to cut the reward for content creators by 25% to do that? I say absolutely not. I can understand making it maybe 65/35 but right down to 50/50 is an incredibly short sighted move that disincentives content creators from coming here.

Posted using Partiko iOS

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @cmplxty

I only just realized that I never thanked you for your comment. Appreciate it.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Greetings brother I’ve found your page because @crypto.piotr invited me. I have read through many of the comments - I’m not a techie nor am I yet a huge content creator. Here’s my two cents - looking at it from the person who sits down and puts in painstaking work to make vids or write blogs it seems unfair. From the perspective of the big investors- why invest if I am making little to nothing ?
The creator hopes to earn and more votes from the big investors will lead to earnings surely. After reading @grandhibaba post I think it might actually work well for everyone. People will resist change ; it’s how we are. For now we can only speculate but I like this balanced view. Let’s keep calm and steem on.

Posted using Partiko iOS

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

As I see it only one thing will happen in future and that is that authors will end up with nothing/earn nothing. That is the way it will go.

HF20 did not stop any scam.
HF21 will not stop any scam nor bots either.

The investors did invest in bots and I am not so sure they (ever) invest(ed) in the community.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It’s pointless to take one piece of the equation and dissect it like this. This entire premise comes down to the downvotes, ideally they’d be able to be delegated this probably won’t make it into this HF21 which frankly is stupid as most everyone agrees that’s a necessity.

If large accounts don’t fully utilize their downvotes this EIP will flop and essentially destroy any hopes of saving this wholly broken platform.

Currently there is zero incentive to keep anyone from self voting the curve,50/50, and downvotes must all work in conjunction to quell this. It’s not up to us little people, we are basically powerless. And while agree large stakeholders should dictate what direction their investment goes it should be noted that this is a pay to play game and blogging is still its best game.

Will whales and orcas flag the shit out of traf, chbconartist, Bernie, and all the bad actors and change their own behaviors by not self voting and manually curating is the only question you should be asking.

It’s not about piddly shit rewards of your 3 dollar post, that’s only a slice of this pie. Until we see it go down and give it time to let the dust settle there’s no point in debating it.

It will get uglier than it is first it’s not going to be an overnight change nor is it the silver bullet. Clearly nobody outside of steem gives a damn, I think it’s better to not sell any potential future users the same lie most users here bought. That is that you can get paid to do what you do on social media and if you’re a great blogger you will go far. Bullshit ! It’s pay to play and it takes money to make money on earth. That being said over 8 months I’ve gone from 15 sp to 450 how ? A whale, all the upvotes from all the small accounts haven’t really done much, but that’s relative, 450 sp if powered down isn’t life changing or a career either.

Steem is different things to different people but again I can’t stress enough that it’s a game and in this game the winners have stake the losers don’t.

Posted using Partiko iOS

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @skramatters

I realized just now that I never actually thanked you for your amazing comment. I appreciate your time :)

ps. you don't like chbconartist? Would you consider him "bad actor"? I wonder why. Isn't he creating content that actually have some value for many people out there?

Have a great monday.
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks man,

I’m not a fan of his no, I’m sure some find his stuff valuable, for me it’s forced and too focused on being agreeable. Any used bookstore is full of this self help stuff, I feel he has no genuine intent to do much of anything but have the most visibility and siphon off as much rewards as possible.

To each their own though, I suppose I’ve had more exposure than many to the whole online psychology crap he spews forth. I’ve never seen him have a meaningful dialogue and feel certain he is just bastardizing deepak chopra and that Ilk of “I’m only here to help” people.

That’s cool though I like my content to have a bit more personality and edge. There’s enough of fluffy vanilla cupcake with a cherry 🍒 on top content on chain. I can respect the hustle but how long can this platform support his incessant feel good regurgitations ?

Have a good week ! Would love to hear Your your thoughts on palnet ? And if you plan on changing anything post EIP if it goes through.

Posted using Partiko iOS

0
0
0.000
avatar

That is horrible, most authors gains very little and share even more gains with curators means those who can't invest will go demotivated.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

For those who can't invest SteemIt is already not very attractive. So say it carefully.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @gandhibaba:

Spanish
Yo veo en esta nueva división de ganancias, tomando en cuenta las limitaciones en cuanto a Voting Power, como un mecanismo para que quienes tienen mayor cantidad de poder obtengan más rápido mucho más y quienes tienen meno, obtengan menos ganancia y además en mayor cantidad de tiempo. Llevado a la vida real que quienes tienen más obtengan mucho más y quienes tienen menos, se queden como minnows por mucho más tiempo o deserten de la plataforma.

Además se desestima el trabajo creador, al valorarlo con el mismo porcentaje con que se valora al que vota.

Translate into English
I see in this new division of profits, taking into account the limitations in terms of voting power, as a mechanism for those who have more power to obtain time Take real life than those who are more likely to get much more than those who have more they have less, they stay as small for much longer or they desert the platform.

In addition to the publication of the work, the valuation with the same percentage with the value of voting.

Thanks for Sharing

0
0
0.000
avatar

You received 50 Hobo tokens!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks a lot for your gift.
I'm happy.
They´re my first hobo tokens.

Where can I look for that tokens??

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello, you can find them at https://steem-engine.com, which is a sidechain of Steem.

Also, you can download a browser extension wallet that is similar to Ethereum's Metamask wallet. This wallet is called Keychain and it is meant for Steem and Steem Engine tokens. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hi @gandhibaba I know that this post from @crypto.piort when I talk about steem I really don't really understand it and if I mention it from myself it is like I am a creator of this platform and I certainly have a small Sp have a big Sp and if it's a 50/50 reward distribution, maybe if I can only surrender and maybe my content is not too interesting or how, and why I still survive here even though sometimes I only get a little reward I think it's because of my enthusiasm still burning about this platform😄

0
0
0.000
avatar

I just would like to take your attention on Alexa rating of Steemit:
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/steemit.com
In this time we are slowly growing up again after fall down on last year october when HF20 break into our life, do we want another collapse? I think this time will be definitive....

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @loro68

Thanks for dropping by and sharing your opinion with us.

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

do we want another collapse? I think this time will be definitive....

Oh wait. You may see things even in darker colours than I do ...

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hopefully this will bring more interest and interaction between the authors and the voters.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @gandhibaba, the big boss man @crypto.piotr sent me a memo about this post and here is my 2 cents thoughts about the whole thing.

I for one have read so many post for and against the HF21 and what I can say is that so many things and outcome are based on the assumption that people will behave this way or that way.

What I have seen in my many years on planet earth is that humans are unpredictable.

Some of the assumptions of the HF21 is based on the fact that people will behave in a certain manner or way. Has there been any statistics done on the what if's?

A lot of content creators earn their livelihood on Steem, what if they leave Steem because they view this as a way of reducing their earnings from 75% to 50%.

Have we looked at most of the post of content creators and what they earn without promoting their post? Many earn less than $1. What if they decide not to promote their post? How is their earning going to go up?

What if content creators decide to burst content creation and just place the SP for sell?

The more I look at this the more it is telling me we are assuming a lot and taking things for granted.

I am a content creator, I make one or two post daily, I am not going anywhere but my actions going forward will be based on the reactions of the majority.

If you say bid bot is our problem then put a cap on it. I believe if you're traveling internationally I believe there is a max cash you can carry, why can't we do that for bid bot?

If self vote is the issue why can't a cap be placed on it say once a day?

I've tried hard to understand the point of HF21, I've really tried and that is why I keep reading post for and against it.

All i can say at the end is that HF21 is based on assumptions that humans will behave in a certain way. If the assumptions end up becoming correct, that is what we have to wait for and see. All I know is that human beings are unpredictable and you can take that to the bank.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @ketcom

I must admit that your comment put a huge smile on my face. Especially when you called me "the big boss man" hahaha :) Love it!

Thanks for sharing your own 2 cents with us on this particular subject.

I for one have read so many post for and against the HF21 and what I can say is that so many things and outcome are based on the assumption that people will behave this way or that way.

our assumption should always be that people will look for ways to abuse each system, to gain short term benefits.

Unfortunatelly it's not the case now. HF21 is showing some vision. Vision that could be perfect but this vision completely seem to ignore the fact, that it's opening enormous doors for financial abuses.

A lot of content creators earn their livelihood on Steem, what if they leave Steem because they view this as a way of reducing their earnings from 75% to 50%

the worst of all is the fact, that those who actually bring value to Steemit platform by commenting and encouraging authors - they are basically abandoned.

I'm replying to huge amount of comments daily and as an author of those comments I get hardly anything. And all those rewards it will be reduced even more.

I've tried hard to understand the point of HF21, I've really tried and that is why I keep reading post for and against it.

We're on the same page. I've also read some people saying how HF21 will stop bidbot and self-upvote abuse. How it will encourage quality curating. But I see all of it as a "wishes" and at the same time growing threats seem to be very real.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @ketcom. It's me one more time.

I am a content creator, I make one or two post daily,

That's a lot. Why so much?

I also wanted to make some suggestion.

My impression is, that the hardest part of attracting attention on STEEMIT is the fact, that our audience have very little chance to actually find our publications. Lack of solid notification system is an obvious issue. And regardless how hard I would try - there is very little chance I would find out about your new interesting publications (my feed is just flooded with to many posts).

Please allow me to share some suggestion with you. If you would ever publish content related to blockchain, crypto, artificial intelligence, psychology etc. then perhaps you could simply send me memo with link to that post.

This way not only I would have a chance to read your publication, but I will also upvote it right away with 20k SP voting power. If I would consider it interesting then I may also share it with wider audience.

Please let me know what do you think.

Yours,
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks a lot @crypto.piotr, now you see why I called you "the big boss man". Lol.

Self Post

I use the @actifit Dapp, which means I need to submit a report of my activities that resulted in my step count daily. That is one post.

I own a rabbit farm and a garden and I am into the homesteading thingy so once in a while I do post on such topics.

When I see new opportunities like Palnet.io/Palcoin, JJM, SCT or AAA and others I post about those topics too.

I joined Steem-Bounty last month but started placing a bounty on some of my post 8 days or so ago. I plan to be doing a weekly bounty series on funny stuff to let out some steam off members and create a more happy and relaxed Steem atmosphere.

@upvotebuilders Post

@upvotebuilders is a community I initiated to help content creators get upvote rewards for their post depending on their membership level.

We started Feb. 2019 and already have 87 members with 18,770 SP, we are still growing and looking for big SP delegators to join us as members.

Membership is by delegation only, you can join and leave whenever you like so their is no risk involved.

We run a bi-weekly contest where members can win next level upvote, we also have a member of the month award where the winner gets 100% upvote for the month. This is the user members voted most as the person that encourages other members most on the platform via upvotes, comment and other action the grows the community and Steem at large.

We also have the Featured Member section where a member new or old is featured and other members are encouraged to go and support their post either via upvote or comment or resteem.

All these are ways we are just using to encourage content creators for the effort they put into creating their work.

I'll would really love to see you on our membership list and I am very sure other members will love to see you too. No additional effort is needed from you if you don't have the time after joining. Once delegation is received you get one upvote daily for your post depending on your membership level. Cheers.

Thank You

I want to appreciate your offer greatly. I'll sure alert you when I do a post that falls into your category of interest as you have mention. You are painstakingly doing a lot to make Steem great.

Thanks once again and Happy Father's Day to you,

Kenneth
@ketcom

0
0
0.000
avatar

I just had a chance to read your comment @ketcom.

RESPECT :)

I use the @actifit Dapp, which means I need to submit a report of my activities that resulted in my step count daily. That is one post.

Those posts are actually turning your profile into one that look very "spammy". Personally I think that people are shooting themselfs in their own legs by allowing this kind of content to be published on their accounts.

I joined Steem-Bounty last month but started placing a bounty on some of my post 8 days or so ago.

Steem-bounty will give you great exposure. Even sending 1 STEEM will do the job :)

ps.
Did you create @upvotebuilders ? Wow. Are you a programmer or you do something related to blockchains? Just curious.

Once delegation is received you get one upvote daily for your post depending on your membership level.
No additional effort is needed from you if you don't have the time after joining.

Im glad you underlined that. I'm indeed quite short with time lately. I would surely love to support you with some delegation, just for the sake of supporting your project. Where can I find out more about your membership levels?

Yours,
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Thanks a lot @crypto.piotr for the feedback, it is well appreciated.

Those posts are actually turning your profile into one that look very "spammy". Personally I think that people are shooting themselfs in their own legs by allowing this kind of content to be published on their accounts.

I truly respect your views about actifit, actually most of the good people i've come to become friends with has been through the actifit dapp, i've grown to learn most of their stories, kids graduating from school, birthdays, special events, sickness to good health, loss of loved ones, challenges of everyday life and so on.

They've also grown to know me, what I do, my family, rabbit farm, garden and so much more. We encourage ourselves everyday through comments, upvotes, resteem and passing important information round.

Steem-bounty will give you great exposure. Even sending 1 STEEM will do the job :)

You're 100% correct

Did you create @upvotebuilders ? Wow. Are you a programmer or you do something related to blockchains? Just curious.

Yes I did create @upvotebuiders.

I have a BSc in Mathematics, certificates in management, website design/development, computer training, worked in the banking sector, management consulting firm, stockbroking firm before setting up my own web services company (hostketcom.com - domain reg, web hosting, web design and training & mintmanual.com - bulk sms).

I guess everything kinda rubs off and adds up to the skills I use here. Almost all the tools needed for @upvotebuilders are found of the Steem blockchain, others are use of Ms excel and graphic tools. Members also throw in suggestions which we implement if we don't have complaint about them.

I would surely love to support you with some delegation, just for the sake of supporting your project. Where can I find out more about your membership levels?

You can find our latest report at:
https://steemit.com/palnet/@upvotebuilders/7ujnqp-upvotebuilders-weekly-report-16

Membership Delegation Levels

Level 1: 10 - 49 SP delegation - 4% voting weight
Level 2: 50 - 99 SP delegation - 8% voting weight
Level 3: 100 - 249 SP delegation - 16% voting weight
Level 4: 250 - 499 SP delegation - 24% voting weight
Level 5: 500 - 999 SP delegation - 36% voting weight
Level 6: 1,000 – 2,499 SP delegation - 48% voting weight
Level 7: 2,500 – 4,999 SP delegation - 60% voting weight
Level 8: 5,000 – 7,499 SP delegation - 72% voting weight
Level 9: 7,500 and above gets you 80% voting weight

We adjust the percentages when our SP and members grows to make it sustainable and keep upvoting members.

Thank you so very much for your support.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already. On the surface of it, it looks like content creators are getting a 33% pay cut and curators are getting a 50% rise. Maybe it will encourage more people to vest their steem as SP and so reduce supply on the markets and in turn cause a price rise. That'd be a bit of a win imo since demand/supply curves tend to be curved rather than linear.
About bidbots - I don't think they're going away because of HF21. The market prices for upvotes will adjust accordingly and they bots will stay. The bidbots can afford it since their previous loses are probably offset by curation gains.
Time will tell.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @eturnerx

Thanks for dropping by and sharing your opinion with us.

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already.

Nothing can be said that others didn't. I know that we will be repeating ourselfs,However I'm curious what majority of people think.

About bidbots - I don't think they're going away because of HF21.

Neither do I. Bot's will surely stay and bots will be growing twice as fast. That's scary.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Greetings @gandhibaba came here from a friend (@crypto.piotr), which as always thank you for sending me interesting articles, and this article in particular, which is very interesting and at the same time very alarming.

Seeing that none of this is new to say the least, it has been seen how the whales do and discard at will, and this decision does nothing but give a boost to their actions, like saying here I am with you ... ( I apologize if someone is offended, it was not my intention but it is my point of view).

With changing the type of reward in this way I think many will be those who seek other ways (so that their posts are properly monetized) as in itself according to the post few are the people who make a quality post, that invest time and effort, against all odds (as they would say here) come someone and simply take all the credit (talking about money) or almost anything else because your vote is huge and with just take half or more of what you do (and more when the author's vote may be insignificant).

I think there are ways to evade a bit this but I do not know if it's the right one, or how profitable it is, and that is to start using 100% SteemPower or Steem posts, of course I remember my posts (I do not know if so for all) under that premise did not give or did not reflect a profit as well as when using the traditional system, I guess because the value of the coins is different and that they give priority to SP over the Steem.

But well, there is a lot to see and a long way to go from this, both with the bots (which I think now get more strength) and with the whales and the autovotes, but we will see how everything evolves and the damage is the minimum possible.

For now I have nothing more to say, but thank you for reaching this part of my comment, and wish you a happy Sunday and a great start to the week, (and if in your country like mine is celebrated on the day of father, and if you are my father my happiness, if you have your father alive as I give him a big hug that even if it seems little will mean a lot to you, likewise if he is deceased and you are a believer he prays he will thank you in the same way ;) ). God bless you

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @jjqf

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

God bless you too

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks @crypto.piotr, have a nice sunday and a great start to the week, regards

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think the whales have more than enough power I don't have a problem with the way it is. It will also give more power to delegates and investors that might not even use steem

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

You received 50 Hobo tokens!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Great were and what can I do with them?

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

You can find your tokens at steem-engine.com or in the Keychain wallet, a browser extension wallet similar to Ethereum's Metamask.

These tokens will be used as a utility token in order to receive support from the upcoming HoboDAO.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Can I also find my hobo tokens on steem-engine.com? (I never used that yet).

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello @crypto.piotr, yes, you absolutely can find them there at steem-engine.com. I will be creating a post today that will educate the community on how to view and transfer their tokens.

You will be able to learn where to go and how to download the Keychain wallet, an opensource browser extension similar to Ethereum's Metamask. (Keychain is more secure than using Steemconnect!)

I will also teach the community how to view their tokens, transfer their tokens, and also how to buy and sell their tokens on the Steem Engine market.

If you would like a simple explanation of why your Hobo tokens are worth keeping, please check out this recent post from Hobo Media: How Will The HoboDAO work?

If you need any more questions answered feel free to let me know, I am happy to respond to any inquiries and feedback.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Been a little busy, the educational guide on using Steem Engine will be out soon. :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @gandhibaba,
Thanks to @crypto.piotr my star above all on the content finders sky I managed to find and read this nice post.
As an older user I’m so tired of technicals and maths that doesn’t enlighten my view but darkens it more as well as deincentivates me more and more as it makes me think this ecosystem is only for crypto engineers and rich people.
I’m mainly a curator due to my persistent lack of free time(real life duties) to create the content I’m used to: quality content mainly in the musical esfere.
Said that, the 50/50 reward model would may benefit me more than the current model, nice!
As an author it won’t like me, no mater the side from which I look at it. Sry I’m not able to see an advantage for authoring...it seems quite unfair to me. I’ve always thought that the key aspect of Steem is “Content” and it comes from authors, if they don’t feel rewarded properly they won’t produce it, why should they?...only big whales would do it to vote-farm and self vote them to earn even more.
About bid-bots, I don’t think they will close the shop but adjust their code to the new system. They work on the curation side and there will be more “cake” to eat so...
Thanks for putting the stuff on the table, at least we can talk about it from a human perspective oposite from the normal technical one.
My best wishes for you,

Cheers

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @drakernoise

Did you just call me STAR? :) OMG. Im blushing.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi
I got to know about this post through @crypto.piotr and I am glad that he shared this post with me.
Talking about HF21 and the change in payout structure to 50/50 I am not in favour of it. I am not much aware about technical things but from the author point of view I know much it takes to create a content but for curator it is not. If as a curator I can get the same kind of reward which author gets then I would prefer to be a curator rather author.
This is going to disappoint content authors and i think steemit might face reduction is good content. This will surely increase the number of curators but what about the content? Content has to be in place for curators.

Otherwise I dont think steemit team is going to take feedbacks and they will do whatever they want to do.

Thanks for writing about this topic.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @alokkumar121

Talking about HF21 and the change in payout structure to 50/50 I am not in favour of it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

If as a curator I can get the same kind of reward which author gets then I would prefer to be a curator rather author.

You nailed it. Especially knowing that as curator you would be able to simply delegate your SP to bidbots (which bidbots will be earning now x2 so rewards for those delegations will also grow).

ps.
Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Smoke.io also have the 50/50 model and to be honest it is okay. At first I was like what you won't be able to earn crytpos that way but guess what you can, and I found I earn more cryptos with the 50/50 payout than I do with a 75/25 payout. SO I highly suggest going with the flow and waiting and seeing, you all might find out that you are actually making more with a 50/50 payout. The people this will effect in a negative way will be the Whales and Dolphins, but not much.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your thoughts. It's very well received. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

0
0
0.000
avatar

@gandhibaba I hate to say this but you are kind of wrong in a lot of points. I feel like the current model of 75/25 split is perfectly ok, I would have even been ok with a 65/35 Split in favor of Authors but 50/50 split is just a lot and I have my reasons for it.

1. From Steemit's point of view, they are proposing a 50/50 Split but in reality, it's going to be a 50% Curator Reward/40% Author Reward/10% Beneficiary Reward as most of the Daaps on the STEEM Blockchain uses at least a 10% Beneficiary Reward cut which is necessary for them to Sustain as well. By opting for this new Split procedure most of the Dapps might just shut down as most people wouldn't be psyched to use the Daaps if they take a 10% cut from their already low Author Reward.

2. It seems STEEM needs more Authors right now as might be shown in @penguinpablo's Graphs.


So shouldn't we try to keep Authors on the Platform?

3. Let's talk about the Bid Bot Issue. You said in the Post that Bid Bots might go down as it wouldn't be profitable for Authors to use certain amount of STEEM only to get a tiny Percent back but Bid Bots are currently running on the same Principle. Even now Bid Bot's aren't profitable for the Authors, it just gives a little exposure to their Content, not any Profit. I do agree that some Bid Bots may shut down but the Bigger ones will most certainly be still active.

Alas, I just want to say that I read the entire Post from @timcliff and I am ok with almost everything except the 50/50 Split as I believe there wouldn't be much content to Curate if there are no Creators to write Content. I would have agreed with a 50/50 Split if Steemit was lacking Curators but it seems currently we are lacking Authors.

0
0
0.000
avatar

50% Curator Reward/40% Author Reward/10% Beneficiary Reward

That is indeed a very interesting point. Until now my Utopian posts had a 5% share for @utopian.pay and 5% for @steemplus-pay — I might have to reconsider that. But then I'm not in for the money anyway.

if Steemit was lacking Curators but it seems currently we are lacking Authors

Indeed, SteemIt is lacking good quality authors.

Also have a !BEER

0
0
0.000
avatar

Even I am not here for the Money, I am here cause I love Blogging here. It is funny how much I have written about myself here in two Years than what I wrote on Facebook in 4-5 Years. Even if this 50/50 Split happens I will still be here Blogging. But I can say this for sure that a lot of Authors are going to drop out as a lot of them do want to Earn something out of this and that is what worries me.

The Last HardFork also took out a lot of Authors and it looks like this one might be heading toward the same Direction.

BTW thanks for the BEER now I have 5 BEER's in my Fridge 5 more to go then I will start Distributing as well.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the fine points you've made here. Permit me to briskly make the following points.

  1. Your first point is well received. Those who use dapps may be affected sharply because of the cut. However, you did not mention that dapps usually curate posts of those who use it. Esteem, Partiko, Busy, etc upvote posts that also increase the reward of authors.

  2. From your charts, I find a correlation between the price of Steem and the activities of authors. Surely we need to keep authors and only a surge in the price of Steem can do that. And as @cranium noted, HF21 can do that magic.

  3. Bid bots cannot survive the 50/50 curation model because they will become extremely unprofitable. I stand to be corrected, anyway.

Thanks for your inputs. I appreciate.

0
0
0.000
avatar

As for Dapps curating content there is a slight problem as it is not guaranteed that you will get upvoted. I don't really remember this but Busy curates either once every 12 hours or once every 22 hours and it also depends on the number of Followers you have. As for esteem there is no certainty of getting upvoted Everytime. Even if the posts gets upvoted it will still not be sufficient for the newbies. I have crunched in the numbers already.

Correlation of STEEM price to Authors, this is something I do agree on but what I wanted to say in my previous comment was that it is not that hard to bring in Authors but is surely hard to keep them Blogging on Steemit. I started 2 years ago and I hardly see the guys who started Blogging with me here on Steemit.

As for the Bid Bots I can assure you there are a lot of ways for them to be perfectly ok even after the 50/50 split. I can just give you one method right now. They can just increase the Minimum ROI from 10% to 50% and people would again jump in. You might say that it wouldn't be profitable for the Bidbot owners as they have to pay their delegators as well. There is even a way for that, they will be receiving extra Curation because of the 50/50 split so they can just power down some SP each week and pay the delegators. It's that easy. Even after doing that they can probably make a profit so I really don't see Bid Bits going out of Business. The Small ones might go but not the big ones.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the clarity. I see what you mean now and understand the noble thoughts behind those positions. Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @arunava

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

By opting for this new Split procedure most of the Dapps might just shut down

I didn't think about it. Thx for pointing it out.

I do agree that some Bid Bots may shut down but the Bigger ones will most certainly be still active.

Exactly. And those bidbots will be growing twice as fast.

... except the 50/50 Split as I believe there wouldn't be much content to Curate if there are no Creators to write Content.

You nailed it. Unfortunatelly I see it in very same gloomy way :(

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Gracias @crypto.piotr! estoy de acuerdo con usted, mi crecimiento se hará más lento, con mis publicaciones y con mis votos también, ya que soy una cuenta pequeña, los que saldrán beneficiados son los grandes inversores, los abusos no se acabaran, una vez más gracias por la donación, un abrazo..

0
0
0.000
avatar

@gandhibaba, When change arrives then many old patterns will going to change for sure. In a way it will hit bid bot users to some extent.

When power is shared equally then Ecosystem becomes more strong because worth is equal. No Product (Blog Post or Content) then no consumer, No Consumer but Product exists then there is no value. So definitely we will going to see the Transfer Of Value. Stay blessed.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think the 75/25 model was good for authors but curators of minnow status or less have a hard time getting good rewards for votes we wont know how much of an impact it will have on the steem blockchain as a whole but i do know it is gonna leave some people in shock

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello nice post and enjoy the start of debate on the topic. I have to admit that my gut feel is that this will be good for the platform. As someone who enjoys viewing quality posts and pics, I spend a good deal of time curating. As such the increased curation rewards are certainly appealing.

I've heard some authors complain that the reduced payout proportion will negatively affect their income. I'm not sure that is the case. If there is higher value paid for curating, more people will vote on quality posts, and so while the proportion may be less, the amount will be more. Spam and low quality votes may not see as much manual voting so their payout will certainly be reduced. That is a good thing. Maybe those folks will leave, and be replace by new folks producing quality posts, and doing manual upvoting on quality posts.

The really good news is to see that the folks running the platform are still engaged and making changes in a desire to improve the platform. Most of the changes I've seen in the 2 years I've been on have been for the better. Maybe not all of them will be, but good to see the attempts and continued interest.

Enjoy!
@ksteem

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @ksteem

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Even if we're having different view on some of those points. I appreciate your time.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Important discussion. now following and resteemed to spread the impact of this post.

I'll reflect on this and get back to you. But huge food for thought...

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks @crypto.piotr
Over all I’m confident Steem will be fine .
The reward curve change I agree with.
I don’t think we need the upvote change to 50/50. But we will just adjust like we always do .

One thing I will mention is that we should not be too harsh on the witnesses. Ever try getting a group of people to all agree on something. It’s not easy. I take my hat off to them .

One thing I will say though is that it is hard to get people to engage with you . After a year I’m only just starting to get a few regular people engaging with me .
So a few more people looking to start engaging would not go astray.
Although i don’t really consider getting an upvote engagement. Normally when I’m talking about engagement I’m talking about getting a comment on my content.

As for the bots, good luck getting rid of them . They will just adjust with the rest of us humans.

I read a few of the comments on this post and you have got some great engagement. I agree with some and disagree with others .

Anyways thanks for posting,
Have an awesome day!

Posted using Partiko iOS

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @mickvir

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

I don’t think we need the upvote change to 50/50. But we will just adjust like we always do .

You've lost me here. Can "we" actually upvote or decline some particular change? Is there any poll that allows us (common users) to have any impact?

One thing I will mention is that we should not be too harsh on the witnesses. Ever try getting a group of people to all agree on something. It’s not easy. I take my hat off to them .

Very true. I'm just sad that they seem to agree that creating system that would benefit current powerful stakeholders and reduce rewards for all those who create content (value) is what they actually all agreed on.

One thing I will mention is that we should not be too harsh on the witnesses. Ever try getting a group of people to all agree on something. It’s not easy. I take my hat off to them .

One thing I will say though is that it is hard to get people to engage with you . After a year I’m only just starting to get a few regular people engaging with me .

Did you ever consider sending memos to your most active followers with link to your new publications? That's the most efficient way of sending notifications and it increase chance of people reading your post greately.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

It's me again @mickvir

I also wanted to make some suggestion.

My impression is, that the hardest part of attracting attention on STEEMIT is the fact, that our audience have very little chance to actually find our publications. Lack of solid notification system is an obvious issue. And regardless how hard I would try - there is very little chance I would find out about your new interesting publications (my feed is just flooded with to many posts).

Please allow me to share some suggestion with you. If you would ever publish content related to blockchain, crypto, artificial intelligence, psychology etc. then perhaps you could simply send me memo with link to that post.

This way not only I would have a chance to read your publication, but I will also upvote it right away with 20k SP voting power. If I would consider it interesting then I may also share it with wider audience.

Please let me know what do you think.

Cheers, Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

The 50/50 split will:

  1. increase ROI for bid bot owners
  2. decrease ROI for bid bot users
  3. market mechanisms will correct #1 and#2
  4. the current level of bid bot usage will be sustained with less money being pumped around by users.
  5. this creates demand for more delegation to bidbots.
  6. The dust treshold combined with the new reward curve and the 50/50 reward split create additional demand for bid bots for smaller and new users.
  7. the separate down-vote pool creates insentive for current self-upvoters to move from self voting to "savely" delegating to bidbots.

So no, this won't hurt bid bots. Without a few simple fixes, that should be implemented with the EIP, not some distant HF in the future, the EIP will make the bid bot economy flourish like never before.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @pibara

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

increase ROI for bid bot owners
decrease ROI for bid bot users

Absolutely. Surely bot-owners will have to change some algorythms to allow bots to function.

the current level of bid bot usage will be sustained with less money being pumped around by users.

You nailed it.

this creates demand for more delegation to bidbots.

And those who simply delegate to bidbots will most likely enjoy higher rewards. So delegators will be growing fast and bidbots will be growing twice as fast as they do now. Right?

ps. thx for sharing link to your old publication.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Greetings @crypto.piotr, @gandhibaba and to everyone,

Clearly many things can happen with a single change or a shake-up.
For a beginner, like me, it may not affect me greatly or I may not even notice it.
50/50 or 75/25 for my small Steem may not buy me candy.
That is why I enjoyed reading the concern and the comments regarding Steemit platform.
If everybody will maximize the benefit that it will bring then we just have to go for it.
In any way, being vigilant is what makes a community like this survive.

Change is inevitable if we truly want to be a champion we have to embrace the path that may benefit us the most and concentrate where we can profit the most in that given situation.
We can be a champion for a year or will be in the finals for 5 straight years in which play there will always be a winner. It is nice to be in either of these teams.

Teamwork for curators and authors should be emphasized and enhanced so we can all benefit as a community.

Warm Regards to everybody

0
0
0.000
avatar

I guess the people who decide the changes, or forks, do an exhaustive study of the consequences of those changes, don't they?

Steemit has lost and will continue to lose users. So I think they should look for a solution to prevent those who aren't leaving and investors continue to support the platform.

Steemit will be faced with new competencies, who knows, Voice will possibly take down all platforms if it offers something better.

A 50/50 reward distribution, in the end, doesn't sound so bad

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @jadams2k18

I guess the people who decide the changes, or forks, do an exhaustive study of the consequences of those changes, don't they?

I guess they do. And then they think how to put their all ideas into nice words :)

Steemit has lost and will continue to lose users. So I think they should look for a solution to prevent those who aren't leaving and investors continue to support the platform.

Very true. And "milking the cow" before it dies isn't solution. You out of all people should know it :) Imagine that wealth in your country is being wrongly distributed and changes are being introduced and all of sudden those who have money are getting even more, end all hardworking people are being paid less.

How would that solve problem?

A 50/50 reward distribution, in the end, doesn't sound so bad

Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

"milking the cow"... I never heard that expression. But I know what you mean. I have seen many examples with bank managers who fled the country with the savings of many workers.

I get your point. And I agree with you

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you @crypto.piotr for sharing this post to me.

Dear @gandhibaba,

I think changing the current 75/25 to 50/50 is unfair to the authors. I know both authors and curators are important. However, authors do the heavy lifting so they deserve more than just half of the payout.

As a daily content creator, I find 50/50 rather demotivating as I will be facing a pay cut. I might consider to reduce the frequency of posting content and spend more time upvoting and curating.

Coming up with consistent quality content can be time and energy consuming, and if authors don't get rewarded enough for their hardwork then they might as well consider switching their roles in this platform, or worse, leave and join a different platform.

Moreover, I don't think that the 50/50 decision will reduce bots. Chances are we will lose authors and have a rise in bots as they will be able to earn more by just upvoting content.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @yashny

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

Moreover, I don't think that the 50/50 decision will reduce bots.

neither do I.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

It is interesting to see the progress that will occur with the future of Steem, hopefully the advantages and disadvantages have also been considered before this idea is implemented ...
I'm just impatient to wait for its development ..

0
0
0.000
avatar

Majority of those who kick against the proposal have argued that the model will give more power to the whales and take away reward from the curators who add value to this blockchain.

Another argument that has been put forward is that a 50/50 curation model may end up demoralizing curators, quenching their interest in Steem and moving their blogging activities to other rival blockchains.

Do you mean authors?

With this remark I get my share of future 50% :(


One important point we often ignore here is that neither Steem, Steemit nor any other dapp on here can exist without dedicated investors, investors who have a long term perspective. And who are such kind of investors? They are those who hold Steem power.

Therefore, as a way of providing incentives to SP holders, a 50/50 curation model is necessary. If investors can earn more from holding Steem, it is likely that more investors will come into the scene. And that could do some magic to the price of Steem in the long run.

My take is that these investors have enough reward already. They don't need even bigger percentage. In other words, they don't need to take even more away from other contributors.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for spotting the error. I meant authors not curators. I am correcting it right away. Also, thanks for your contribution. It is well received.

0
0
0.000
avatar

@ganhibaba [email protected] I have read posts on both sides of this debate and I have been unable to determine what side to believe. Without having real test cases to evaluate, no one has presented real data that I am able to evaluate to push me one way or the other. I just have to hope the change does not create massive turmoil. We are a community who are here for different reasons. I came with the hope to earn something (however small or large) for my efforts here and found some communities that I enjoy engaging with. As with all "social" online sites there are good people and negative people. I just hope the good engaging people win out in the end.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @mytechtrail

I have read posts on both sides of this debate and I have been unable to determine what side to believe.

Wow. not many people seem to be as neutral as you are :)

Appreciate reading this discussion and sharing your view.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

This problem with new HF21 reward system is very atual for people. And I think both sides have right arguments. But maybe we need third one 'answer' and button like a option when people can choose by themselves reward persantyage? But big negative side that self voters and abusers won't choose 50/50 voluntarily I think

0
0
0.000
avatar

Bid bot operators can start accepting lower bids to offset the loss of author rewards. They can easily afford it because thanks to 50/50 they'll earn more in curation rewards. @ocdb is still the best game in town as delegators get 90% of the bid and authors get the rest. There is no middle man taking a cut. Additionally, you have to be whitelisted to use the bot and if you use it on worthless posts, you can get kicked off the whitelist. The smallest possible of evils, in my opinion.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @markkujantunen

They can easily afford it because thanks to 50/50 they'll earn more in curation rewards.

You nailed it. Some people think that bidbots will die. But all have to be done is simple: change algorythm behind those bots and play around with numbers. And you will make them profitable again + they will grow twice as fast.

Most STEEM will end up in hands of very few. That's the problem of HF21. Redistribution will sucks.

Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
Most STEEM will end up in hands of very few. That's the problem of HF21. Redistribution will sucks.

We can't know that. I don't know either, but I'm guessing that not much will change.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

A Different Approach to the Matter :
Personally, I am not agree that a 50/50 curation model .
But I am agree , should give more powers to the whales .
So I suggest it should change to the following way...
Curation model still is 75/25.
But the curator's 25% allocation can take a curve allocation.
In other words, the curator still scores 25% in total,
but proportion is not horizontal line, (black line as shown)
proportion can change to curve line, (pictured red line)
its mean is , if voter use more vote power, he can get more reward (his rewardwill add).
This can also inspire the whales to use higher voting rights.

I think the fork can in 1/3 of the place,
That is,
If the voter's power is less than 1/3, the reward will be reduced.
If the voter's power is higher than 1/3, the reward will increase.

Original curation distribution ratio: horizontal line
Proposed curaration ratio: curve line

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @cloudblade

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

50% curation reward is the best solution. It will increase hodlers on steem and surely impact on steem price. Another benefit is people find posts by self and upvote it. So it is also help new content creator to get good amount of upvotes. many people leave steemit because of steem current price and less upvotes on good posts. So these two problems will be solved by this 50% curation reward system.. ♥

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @sameernawab

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Even if we're having different view on some of those points. I appreciate your time.

It will increase hodlers on steem and surely impact on steem price.

I agree on this one. PRICE of steem will surely increase. But PRICE of steem is not what create value of this blockchain. Authors and content creators are.

Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Time versus Investment

I have read most of the comments in this post, and there are good points and to be fair some who may have lost their tin foil hats.

Regardless we are all entitled to our free speech, an we should use it but we also use our votes for witnesses.

I believe content creators should have a fair crack at rewards but also curators should have a decent return for their investment.

What a lot of people are saying is that creators are doing all the hard work, and to some extent this is true but this is time spent without any risk of financial investment, people who vest their SP are actually paying to reward content on the platform and hoping the investment will bring a steady profit. I am all for a 60/40 split as I believe this will lead to people less likely to delegate to bots and claim the curation for themselves and this should lend more value to steem bringing in investors and driving the price higher which in turn will lead to higher payouts for all users.
With the regards to self upvote and circle jerking, this can not be stopped completely as it is the human condition for self service, but we do need to realise that without some kind of advertisement content can be easily missed, this is just the same big brands advertising and not just using word of mouth or hoping someone falls over their product.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Amazing comment @monsterjamgold

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I surely appreciate your time.

I believe content creators should have a fair crack at rewards but also curators should have a decent return for their investment.

I believe so too. Even in regular companies investors need to enjoy some ROI. However providing investors with 50% rewards is insane. It doesn't create value. Authors do. And authors are being "spit in the face" with HF21.

With the regards to self upvote and circle jerking, this can not be stopped completely as it is the human condition for self service,

Very true.

Personally, I also believe that our vote should have some maximum value. That would force powerful whales to spread their upvotes.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hey @crypto.piotr thank you for your memo I appreciate it!
First of all, thank you for directing this topic to me. It is completly new to me. I was reading the article and some comments to get a broad overview.

From my perspective, you demotivate authors because they get paid less and incentivize whales which already have a lot of money.

The business model changes more to pay to win strategy, which is sad in my opinion. People who have more -> get more and people that are trying to start from the bottom without investments have it even harder.

On the other hand, it is nice because you can now passively generate income with a certain amount of Steem. Meaning that you invest some money and get a decent return for just autovoting.

That would also mean that the interaction and the really "active" user will decrease. But in the end we only see the results when it happened. My first gut feeling is not that good, but humans are habit people. They are afraid of change :P

I am curious about the future :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

You received 50 Hobo tokens!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @hobo.media

How does it actually work? How can anyone receive Hobo tokens without having their wallet registered? Are Hobo tokens connected somehow with Steemit usernames?

Is there actually any way to check out amount of tokens anyone is holding?

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @crypto.piotr, yes you can find all your tokens at https://steem-engine.com.

If you sign in there you can find your tokens. They can also be sold for STEEM if a person does not wish to keep their tokens.

The tokens are sent to your account. So, you have tokens. You are the 9th richest HBO whale! :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @mcnestler

I was reading the article and some comments to get a broad overview.

Thx for your comment. I'm glad to know that you found my publication valuable.

From my perspective, you demotivate authors because they get paid less and incentivize whales which already have a lot of money.

It's clear to me that we're having very similar view on that particular issue. And we're not being heard :(

On the other hand, it is nice because you can now passively generate income with a certain amount of Steem.

Very true. But what would be a difference between STEEM and any masternode which would be giving dividents for just holding the coin. It doesnt create any value. Authors do.

I'm afraid that STEEM will turn into ponzi scheme, because right now it will encourage this kind of business model. And will encourage people who make money that way.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

I do not so much mind the 50/50 thing, that makes sense to me. It the liner curve change that bothers me. This will make it much harder for a new person to earn money as they will have to first overcome this negative cure before they can start to earn. This to me seems like it will hurt the most.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @jacuzzi

It the liner curve change that bothers me

Very true. That has been bothering me for quite a while.

Personally, I also believe that our vote should have some maximum value. That would force powerful whales to spread their upvotes.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Does anyone know when the hard fork will happen, other than soon? like is there a website to check? thanks

0
0
0.000
avatar

I actually couldn't find any information about it :(

0
0
0.000
avatar

Far, far from an expert across this, but I suspect HF21 will work at first…for some.

For those who it doesn’t they may find themselves pushed aside quietly by matter of no comments or limited votes of worth and/or hidden comments. While it will represent a small hit to freedom on the platform it may be enough to show positive results if we are using immediate price of Steem as our only measurement of success.

It's important to note - I don't believe this will address the governance issues, it just shuffles and disperses it a bit. It will be a positive effect though I think.

My guess at the problems and what will happen
It’s likely those powerful holders behind the scenes will increase the upvote they are giving to whom they think are good content creators, so the people they deem good people won’t even notice the move to 50/50. Authors will still end up getting paid what they do today (odds favor it will actually be even more). It may have already started, anyone noticed your upvote starting to creep up (and I’m not talking $ value, I’m talking the amount of SP/SBD).
So based on that I think we can say it will be received mostly as a win.
This is moving the power from one or two perceived bad whales running bidbots, to a group of people whom truly believe they can send the price up by ensuring valuable content – in their view. Notably it also shifts the reward to them 50/50 encourages the bad whale bot operators to join them in the ‘not so much but still significant profit taking’ that comes from being a significant share holder that can impact your own dividend (upvote). I’m sure they will just automate the upvote process anyways, but the decision making will be made somewhat up front or delegated and manual .i.e. you won’t be able to use a blind bid bod like you can today.
The issue is one of governance.
This is because of the inherent conflict of interest. Whales, who are Witnesses, who are App creators, who are workers, who are consumers.

There are better ways I think, but those in the inner circle have to want it to be fixed - I just can't think of anyway that doesn't weaken their personal benefit.

I think its important to understand there are no wicked or wrong people of Steem, just people behaving as humans do - trying to make a buck or in some cases as much of a buck as possible. A good governance system disarms this by reducing conflict of interest.

I wish us all luck and hope for the best for Steem.

Cheers

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dear @lordnigel

Appreciate your comment.

it may be enough to show positive results if we are using immediate price of Steem as our only measurement of success.

Intersting point of view. The problem is that PRICE of token should not be measurement of success of any social media platform (Steemit in this case).

It’s likely those powerful holders behind the scenes will increase the upvote they are giving to whom they think are good content creators

Why would anyone believe that current powerful stakeholders will change their upvoting behaviours?

Proposed system can only work if so called Whales would actually start delegating their Steem Power to quality curators. That would indeed allow those curators to be rewarded for their work and benefit entire platoform.

I'm simply afraid, that this will not happen. That at the end most whales will continue auto-upvoting publications of very few people, with their powerful votes and without putting any effort they will start earning x2 more than they did so far.

It surely would encourage them to slow down with powering down, which in effect would most likely bring up the price of STEEM. But that is the only positive outcome. And what would happen year from now, when those "whales" would start dumping this easily earned STEEM?

I wonder if you would agree with me on this one.

Yours
Piotr

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi Piotr

I do agree with you - mostly

I'm trying to stay a bit positive - - In all of this we must recognize there are a number of good whales, Steemians & witnesses who are trying to do something to help Steem - allot of hours have gone into 'thinking this up' with good intentions. Effectively consulting with large groups of varied stake holders is a tough job really, most organisation's just chat to the 'key mover and shakers' hence it comes out in the wash bad.

I don't want to be too critical as many people do other good things for STeem as well, many are technical engineers or entrepreneurs who are very good at what they do.....just not good at creating a proper governance model though I'm afraid.

The thing is i just don't see any one who has cracked the governance nut here...and HF21 doesn't seem close to me, but I am noticing some changes I like.

Cool to see more interaction in posts like this (it's some consultation at least).
Starting to recognise and call out their own conflicts of interest (creating more transparent environment in a hope to build trust) - this is a very positive step. With enough good whales and self reflection there is some hope for STeem yet (but it will come from a governance system that reduces the conflict of interest and ability to influence the benefits)

Maybe HF21 will be the one which makes them see all the best intent in the world cannot prevents humans scheming for themselves - conflict of interest....tweaking technical things and putting in down-votes (which I am firmly against) etc isn't going to do it in my book, but its not just about me - you never know with a few other influences it might come out in the wash brighter.

...As I said they will upvote whom they think are good content creators. the people they deem good. I didn't say how they might make that decision (yes it's likely they will decide to make it themselves or alias accounts etc - whatever ensures they make the max buck).

The problem I have is I can't for the life of me find a perfect solution when I search my mind, so it's hard - - I have two key ideas, each has issues, but perhaps combined could produce a new source of governance. But what is being created here has never been done before - Very hard, especially now it's not greenfields.

Cheers

@Lordnigel

0
0
0.000