A call for delegation
Curie is one of the oldest community projects and has proven to be sustainable through the bad times and the good. Although Curie will continue operations if major delegation is not secured, operations will necessarily be scaled back as Curie is currently operating at a deficit.
If you would like to delegate to Curie you can do so by clicking on the following links:
50 SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
Curie does not have the budget to pay current market rate for SP delegation but can give a small symbolic weekly return for major delegation (100,000 SP+ delegation). Please contact us on Discord to talk details: https://discord.gg/G6RPUMu
Curie is a meritocratic community curation project adding value to the community in many ways:
- Increasing the visibility of original, engaging content on the Steem blockchain by giving exposure to authors who are flying under the radar despite quality posting.
- Aiding user retention by giving engaged new users a taste of major reward and bandwidth to transact with the Steem blockchain (in form of Steem Power portion of author reward from @curie upvote).
- Discovering and empowering promising curators including support of interest/regional specific curation communities.
- Operating a community witness on the @curie account as well as operating full and seed nodes (our fullnode is available for API requests at:
https://rpc.curiesteem.com/).
100% of all Curie proceeds are returned to the community in the form of finder's/reviewers fees & operations pay for contributors. Curie does not self upvote any posting, reserving all available vote power to support other authors.
Other ways you can help
- Follow the @curie blog and upvote and resteem Curie posting
- Follow our trail and vote for curated authors. If you are a SteemAuto user, @curie is an available trail to follow.
- Vote for the @curie witness (all witness payouts are used to fund Curie operations).
- If you have received support from Curie in the past, consider telling your "Curie story" in a post using the #mycuriestory tag to raise awareness.
Learn more
- Read the Curie Whitepaper at curiesteem.com
- Join Curie on Discord chat and check the pinned notes (pushpin icon, upper right) for FAQ and most recent Curie guidelines.
- Watch a vlog from Curie community representative @carlgnash explaining Curie operations.
- Check out the #mycuriestory tag to hear directly from authors and curators about what Curie has meant to them.
Curie - Increasing the visibility of original, engaging content
- Curie curators look for exceptional posts by engaged authors that are flying under the radar, and submit them for review by Curie reviewers (former top Curie curators).
- A Curie reviewer verifies that the post is exceptional, original (not plagiarized), original to Steem (not published elsewhere first), and the author has been engaged with the community and consistent in posting quality content without receiving major reward lately.
- Posts and authors meeting these guidelines are approved for upvote by the @curie account and accompanying vote trail.
- Particularly exceptional posts are resteemed on the @curie blog to over 16k followers.
- Curie curators nominate and invite ~10-12 authors weekly to be featured in twice-weekly Author Showcase posting on the @curie blog.
In short, Curie is helping to keep the "brain" in "proof of brain" through human powered curation and review.
Curie - Aiding user retention
*Post or comment
**All accounts with at least one post or comment (n=416,379)
Curie - Discovering and empowering promising curators
- The Curie curation community is centered around the Curie Discord channel.
- Anyone interested in curation is welcome to apply for the "prospective curator" role in the #general channel. Prospective curators can learn from Curie curators and each other while using the
#curation_linkschannel in the Curie Discord. - There are ~90 active Curie curators monthly and currently 117 prospective curators.
- Curie curators receive a finder's fee per approved submission, rewarding quality curation.
- Curators receive a weekly curation score based on performance; top curators each week can recommend in a new curator.
- Objective performance targets are set; Curie is a meritocracy and any curator can achieve top curator status based on performance, and with consistent performance over time any curator can become a reviewer.
- Curie also supports interest- and regional-specific curation communities ("sub-communities"); each sub-community has developed its own rules & guidelines and has its own team of curators. The @curie vote and trail follows behind these sub-community curation teams at a reduced vote % (see the Weekly Update published every Sunday on the @curie blog for a complete list of sub-communities and sub-community leaders).
Show me the numbers
The Steem ecosystem is described as a place where "your voice is worth something" and content creators can "get paid for good content" (from the current advertisement to new users at steemit.com).
Curators paid: ~ 1,000
MYTH: Curie only supports lower REP authors
Curie has been around for a long time and you may have already formed an opinion based on the way Curie used to operate. At one point, Curie would not upvote an author who had passed an upper limit of REP 52. This is no longer the case. Curie now supports authors of any REP who are persistent in quality posting but receiving little reward recently. A quick look at the unique authors, posts and post payout on Curie upvotes in 2018 to date proves that Curie does in fact support authors of all REP levels.
You may be surprised how many of the established authors on Steem blockchain have received support from Curie:
* Note that a Curie upvote is typically sufficient to lift authors out of the bottom REP ranges 25-34
This chart shows what percentage of the total number of accounts in each REP band have received at least one Curie upvote. This is current REP and in the majority of cases the Curie upvote would have come while author was at lower REP. Given that there are a significant number of bots, group/community accounts, etc., the percentage of actual individual human authors who have received support from Curie is undoubtedly even higher!
Support for Curie is support for exceptional original content, support for engaged & persistent authors, and support for manual curation / "proof of brain".
This is a good initiative, but I have a few problems with @curie and will just raise a few of the issues here,
The 1 day / 24hour rule
This is a Very Restrictive Rule
I can go on & on, if only they will change this
stupidcuration self-defeating rule.....some curators will take 2, 3, 4, 5....hell maybe 6 days to get a post found, nominated, and curie approved.Additionally, there needs to be significantly increased curation submission by more curators, get the list of curators and the criteria to be less strict, open the gate for new-blood curators at least by 200%. The number of curators, motivated, hungry and looking for post has not kept up to pace with the user base growth.
Number of users and posts have increase by >400% 15K/day to 65K/day since I joined, has the number of active curation submission and approval increased that much?
If it has, show a graph of the steady increase of curation approval in the last 6 months, should be an up and up graph naturally.
Even if the number of curators have doubled, so 200% but if 150% have done less submission over time fearing a submission rejection, that's like a zero change in the last 6 months. Now I'm sure it's not that bad, but I would like to know if feedback will be included to support improving curie.
New curators also cannot be found only by nomination by other curators, there needs to be some queue and open vet process.
This recruitment strategy breeds:
I can go on and on, curator referrals are fine, it can be the plurality of methods, but it cannot be the only nor the majority method for recruitment.
Examples of other ways:
etc, etc.
System needs to be updated and adapted to Steem growth.
I'm also a Supporter, Nevertheless I Hope to See Things Improve:
Self-Upvoted For Visibility
Hi @dj123, thanks for being a supporter and a critical thinker. This is probably obvious but I should point out that any ideas brought forward as suggestions for improvements of Curie operations are considered on their merits and not because of a promised reward for implementing them :) Not that the reward you are promising is major enough that I think anyone would suspect that was the case, of course. Your suggestions reflect fundamental misunderstandings of current Curie operations. The case of the 24 hour submission rule is a little different in some respects, and I will address that separately at the end. But RE curator recommendations, loosening guidelines, etc., there are some misunderstandings that I would like to (hopefully) clear up:
The short answer to expanding Curie operations to meet the growth of the platform is, that is exactly why we are seeking major delegation. We would LOVE to expand operations. Without major delegation Curie is currently operating at a small deficit (yes, including witness pay), dipping into "savings" (in the form of a weekly power down of the SP accumulated when Curie had major delegation - I should note that ~ 50% of the SP you will see in the Curie wallet is not in fact Curie's but was earmarked for a specific purpose related to eventual release of communities, this was a requirement of the major delegator who allowed Curie to keep curation rewards in exchange for this future use of half the proceeds) to maintain current level of operations. This is obviously not sustainable in the long run and without major delegation finders fee will be reduced farther, guidelines will be made MORE restrictive, etc., until a balance is attained with a smaller # of submissions, reviews and approvals such that operations are sustainable long term.
Finally to address the 24 hour thing as this is actually a multi-part answer. The 24 hour guideline is not put in place to maximize Curie curation rewards, and in fact has very little impact on curation rewards at all. The vast majority of Curie curation rewards (without running the query I can confidently say this is in the 99%+ range) come from the auto-trailing votes that will come regardless of how old post is at upvote. I.e., Curie would make ~ the same curation reward by upvoting a post > 24 hours old as it does by upvoting a post < 24 hours old. There are a couple of reasons why the guideline is still in place:
Thanks for taking the time to comment with your suggestions and please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers - Carl
Absolutely not, my intended contribution is merely a drop in the bucket 1000 SP compared to someone like J-Files 1 Million SP. But the feedback is a refelection of intention and support to see things improve so it catches up with changes that Steem is growing or more like evolving towards.
I think it's important to note that it probably cost me more for my SP than most whales I've seen so far with more than 500K who acquired it back in 2016, so this is likely going to be the norm going forward from new blood investor and community minded delegators.
The last thing we both want to see is minnows with 10-30SBD savings all being drawn and sucked into bit-bots to mimic a Curie looking reward, and not stick to quality as the system driff towards a direction of pay-for-play Vs. rewarding outstanding contributor, because our systems and organization didn't keep up with the need.
Thank you for writing back and giving all of us a view into the inner workings on how Curie operates with internal cost and expense, and then some.
When I do have a little more time, I'll come back to address you other points, I just wanted to do a respond and give you an upvote for taking the time to elaborate a respond. Your leadership and effort is much appreciated Carl.
Yup I know that was not your intent. Relaxing 24 hour guideline and indeed all guidelines is an ongoing discussion amongst the voting stakeholders of Curie (top curators / reviewers / operators). The guidelines have been changed and relaxed quite a bit in past few months with elimination of upper REP cap, raising max pending post payout from $1 (to $10 for a while, currently $5), elimination of requirement of no other post in past week with > X payout (that number X had changed several times but has been eliminated entirely now). In short, the guidelines are continuing to evolve in recognition of the changing Steem platform, but guidelines that restrict submissions of some kind or another are absolutely and vitally important to Curie operations. Curie used to run as an open submission guild. It was not sustainable. Curie would not have been in operations since August of 2016 if common sense guidelines to keep submissions and related internal costs in balance with income were not implemented.
I am genuinely interested in outside input, and I am not alone within Curie in saying that. Unfortunately input of the "why don't you expand" variety is not really terribly productive commenting on a post calling for delegation and acknowledging that the current level of operations is already not sustainable! Original Poster: Current level of operations is unsustainable and without increased support from community, we will have to scale back. Commenter: Why don't you expand! More submissions! More curators!
LOL
Sometimes it's the counter-intuitive solutions that helps create breakthrough and innovation
Belive it or not, splitting the rewards smaller say 1/3 or smaller, creating a large base of curators, and losening rules that does not reduce quality of submission like 24hours rule will open up more doors and opportunities, and produce greater results like delegation and even higher retention, glad you see you're keeping an open mind
I will elaborate a little later when I'm not in meetings the whole day....and not to worry, I did read everything you wrote ;)
that ignores the review cost and fact that # of reviewers is a limited resource that cannot increase quickly. We can certainly discuss but what you are proposing is not a possibility with current submission structure with curators / reviewers. Curie of course also supports curation teams with a follow e.g. SteemSTEM so not all outgoing votes go through curator / reviewer process. But the only way that something like you are proposing works is by eliminating the requirement of human review before large upvote. And the fact is, Curie has already implemented that, that is precisely what the curie follow of sub-communities is intended to do. The total # of votes that Curie casts through direct follow dwarfs the number of votes cast through curator/reviewer, it is literally the case that what you are suggesting is currently implemented. Those curation teams with the Curie direct follow are not beholden to Curie guidelines, they give smaller upvotes, they cast a ton of them. Curie sets the total vote % for the follow and each of the curation teams decides how to parse that out - some do give votes ~ 1/3 of a "big" Curie (SteemSteem, music subcommunity) while others split the votes out even farther.
Now that method comes with distinct risks, the quality control of a second layer of highly qualified human review is missing. We are conducting an audit currently on all vote trails and I can say that it would be a huge mistake to eliminate human review and increase outgoing votes past current level. If anything, I might be of the opinion that Curie should scale back support of other team's curation trails and spend more of available resources on the curator / reviewer model.
would never suggest removing human review entirely or even in any great measure, the whole idea of a review is a big part of proof of brain....sure beats blind streemian curation folllows that isn't reviewed after months.
consolidation of resources for a more focus goal of greater inclusion and casting a wider curie net might be a good call, also what is the reviewers being compensated currently per review?
some of my ideas are actually a little different to what curie is used to doing, so the more facts you can share the better I can prepare my respond and feeback to you for consideration
Cool looking forward to more discussion. I don't mean to be dismissive of what you are saying, btw. This is obviously a subject that I have spent a lot of time thinking about :)
You're asking a lot of people... to understand that you can be critical & a supporter simultaneously...
As a philosopher, I see no other way but to upvote this comment of yours. To make people think about what they do, and why and how, is the only way to develop & grow.
And it's a sign of genius.
well, i sure hope i'm not proposing changes that won't make a big impact........ i acknowledge that I'm challenged and genuinely commended simultaneously..... As a Steem investor, i see no other way but to up my gambit and propose this to the curie's astute and erudite leadership. To help @curie evolve and excel, as i truly believe, these changes will be worth, and worth way more than 1000 SP, 5000 SP, heck even more than 10,000 SP Steem delegation to @curie.
give results of how many submissions vs how many approvals in the last 3 or 6 months, and a proposal of changes based on the issues above, and I'll delegate what @holoz0r did 100.032 SP (AKA 203,880.026 Vest)
Do 1 & increase the time duration beyond 24hours to say 3.5 days (like @grumpycat approves)
and publicly publicize the 'perspective curator' initiative to reward and recruit new-blood curators openly and aggressively, and I'll increase delegation to what @jodipamungkas did 250 SP
Do 1, 2, & remove the 24hour curation rule to until post can't be voted on by @curie any longer, and I'll increase delegation to what @abh12345 did 500 SP
Do 1, 2, 3, & fix all the issues I mention, and I'll increase delegation to what @ausbitbank,
@levycore, & @voronoi did 1000 SP, even though I don't control 211,895 SP, 34,306 SP & 25,915 SP like they do.
Good ideas, although I think the incentive to change things & to develop further should be internal, not external... although rewards like delegation are nice, obviously.
I'd also like to find a way to think about what 'quality' is. Obviously, that isn't an easy thing to define, and it's good that there is a broad domain. Yet after having trailed the curie-vote for a while, and seeing what was upvoted by curie, I was shocked about the wide range of things deemed 'quality'.
Which is not to say I don't like what Curie is doing, at its size and impact, it is one of a kind and I love it's ambition and aim. But being unique, it also makes their responsibility on this platform even greater.
A few points, but this stands out, that's what Steem lacks, multiple forms of Curie-esque entities and with strong growing communities build around them, not just grateful benefactors, curators, and loyal big fishes. We have room to grow the implementation, and this is why it's good to debate good ideas and coorporation in collaboration.....which brings me to my 2nd point
I understand that this is normal thinking from both constituents and benefactors, as well as general leadership, in fact with most young organizations, we do expect leadership to come up with all the good or great ideas, but in reality, the wisest and most lasting organization have leader that learn to master illiciting innovative ideas from their pool of advisors or even from the public in general.
now on to my next point on definition of qualtiy.... and how we tackle subjectiveness:
I'm just going to cut & paste my respond to @surfermarly about how we can help fix the massive retention loss we've been experiencing irregardless of the tens of thousands joining in the last 3-4 months:
The problem with proof of brains alone is both the subjective measure of the value of said sweat capital, as well as the abuse of it.
Solve this problem and you begin down the path of higher retention. For example, a great spectrum exist for comedy, and when I say great....I mean it's really-really subjective
So how did we start tackling this, 4 ways (and counting):
Hey Mr. DJ. Very thorough with an even-keeled tone to spell out a clear win-win for the community. I like how you showed plenty of upside with alternative ways to better distribute Curie's outreach, while explaining how it wouldn't hurt their cause at all. Change is scary sometimes, but I think many people can sense that it has to happen to keep the ecosystem thriving.
I'd hope that they wouldn't worry about the costs/ROI too much, to see the bigger picture you've laid out, which I believe focuses on the larger importance of both reaching and cultivating more.
I think some criteria needs to change. Good content should be rewarded regardless of reputation. I do like Curie's approach to spread the rewards but a lot of great content is passed on for being too risky.
Agreed, another great point and an easy one to be rectified.
Retaining talent in Steem blockchain is also about recognizing existing senior talent.
Those with high Rep, eg. >60 or >65 or >75 or some number can and should easily have a curie qualified, and upvotes can be capped at say <15% or some reasonable percentile (math can be worked out on bell-curve outlier basis for higher Reps, but nothing replaces the bragging rights of 1% upvote from @curie )
My observation is that High Quality Posters when they get Rep >65 And especially those >50,000 Steem Power, a large number just don't seem to care as much about producing amazing work like they used to.
Don't believe me....go see this post by @idikuci:
Rep70, 700K SP, Whale, Stops Posting and Self-Upvoting 98.7%
https://steemit.com/flagawhale/@idikuci/call-me-admiral-ahab
Keep Talent in the Game, Encourage It. It's not about the
MoneySteem anymore to them, but the Glory, Recognition, and The Participation In the Blockchain.What is the best way to contact you?
I am building a second layer for Steem, which will allow to people, to delegate unused voting power from a day to different initiatives, like @curie.
I would like to talk with you about the details, to make this project better suited for you.
You can poke your head in Curie Discord https://discord.gg/G6RPUMu
Also feel free to DM me on Discord @gnashster#6522
This sounds like an awesome Project. Hope it works.
I am interested in seeing your progress with this, is there a way to follow you new endeavor?
That sounds like such a brilliant idea. I'd love to know that my VP is being used without some of the semi-randomness of some of the auto-voting methods that are around. I'd also love to be able to support @curie in a meaningful way while still maintaining my still low amount (~700) of SP.
Cool idea ! Did it become real within the last 12 months?
Hey Carl, I've got limited time to reply or post (due to IRL stuff), but I do have experience in gaining support (I've raised $8 million from a team of VC's to do project funding), building leadership and nurturing a community (raised up a team of 150 leaders supporting 12,000 member community), here are just nut shell ideas to bring to your team of top10 curators, reviewers, and operators.
IDEA 1 - Curie Community Review - A Whole New Trending
Just dumb down number to illustrate advantages:
1 Avg Approved Curie Cost = Assuming $60 upvote, $10 curator-cost $10 reviewer-cost x 3 (2 reject, 1 approval) = $100 or 100%
2.Use Show Case Review to bring cost down to $50 or 50% and produce at least 175 show-case reviews per week (These Steemians will deeply appreciate this and this will create a whole new Curie Trending to Compete With Bid Bots), & 25 Additional Curie Winners
For reference, lets just call this "Show-Case-Curie"
Summary Details:
With community review mechanism, Curie selects 5 posts from New-Blood-Curators, all 5 will be Show-Case per post for community review (build this popularity up to minimal >1000 minnows with some minimal Rep to participate), Run this 5 times every day. Each post will pay review-coordinator $10 to post, $10 to select 5 best comments and pick best community Post selection (community upvotes might help as it will give clues to who like what well), each post allocates $50 for upvote for best comment, each post has 5 Sub Curie Replies for thousands / 1000s of Steemians to go read (link to post) and upvote (say above minimal Rep 40, 45, 50, to 55 [whatever number] to win best review upvote from ShowCaseCurie and each of the 5 curie comments). Junior New-Blood Curator Submission is $5 for chosen post + 10% (finders fees from the Show-Case-Curie-Reply Upvotes Total), remainder gets 10% for the Show Case Curie Reply (if people like it, this will boost reputation of New-Blood Curators - Yes you put the names of the New-Blood Curators Next To Selection! ...don't worry you can still apply all the penalty rules if a New-Blood Curator has like 5 strikes in a row, he/she can't submit for 2 weeks and go to back of queue, or whatever penalty rules you guys are already good at balancing)
Final Cost of Show-Case-Curie
1 Approved ShowCase Curie Cost = Total Cost: $10 (reviewer post - can-be-automated) + $10 (reply reviewer) + $25 (to thousands of Steemians upvoting Curie and commenting their opinion, hell even get the community to flag spam replies to the 5 Show-Case Curie Replies) + $5 Showcase Curator payout + $30 Post Curie Payout = $80
This produces: 25 Reviews a Day, 175 Reviews a Week, and 35 New Curie Winners......AND helps 140 Other Writers and Posts get recognition for effort. All at 25% discount to current review cost.
Additionally.... I'm willing to estimate, the total winners upvote for the 5 Curie replies, and that same post would bring in income to cover 50% of the cost of each Review Post.
So $80 now cost only $40:
ROI:
Long Term ROI - Organic Retention:
This concept is not new in Steemit, nor in IRL, it works especially with large numbers of participants, and the more participants the more accurate the subjectiveness becomes..... now imagine what will happen when this takes off?
IDEA 2 - 1000 x 50SP, 100SP, 150SP or 200SP SP Community Delegation - A Whole New Delegation Approach
What do you prefer.
Having a 1 Single Whale Delegate 100,000 SP, 500,000 SP, even 1,000,000 Million SP.....but when that said whale pulls it back....you have close to nothing?
OR
1000 x 25SP = 25,000 SP
&
1000 x 50SP = 50,000 SP
&
1000 x 100SP = 100,000 SP
&
1000 x 150SP = 150,000 SP
&
1000 x 200SP = 200,000 SP
Total: 525,000 SP
It's not 1Million SP, but there is less risk at any one time that all 5000 Steemians will pull their delegation at the same time, so there is more stability in Delegation Power
BUT.....no community has ever achieved this you say!
Well no worries, no community has ever given back $250 worth of Curie upvotes daily to All Qualifying Steemians willing to read 1 to 5 post once, twice....upto 5 times a day if a Steemian fancies themselves a great critique.
@Curie runs this (rewarding New Blood Administrators and New-Blood Curators, and New-Blood Post Reviewers) 24/7 so everyone all over the world can participate every 4.5 hours by going to Community Curie ShowCase Trending Review
Guaranteed To Work For Curie....Why? Because you have tens of 1000s followers, and >1000s past benefactors, and imagine if the promo works after 1 month, then 2nd month the ticket to participate is a simple 25SP, 50SP, 100SP, 150SP, 200SP delegation to get some bonus (eg 2x) upvotes for top reviews.
.......apologies, no time for grammar check, quick brain dump for @Carlgnash the man, feel free to ask questions, a number of things here can be totally automated. eg. New-Blood-Reply-Reviewer can give 1% and program checks if Steemian is a delegator gives 2x upvote, if not 1x upvote, etc, etc.
Actually.... hey @idikuci, i think we can program this ourselves for @comedyopenmic make it open source and let @curie use it....ok small plug to help the lost souls in the comedy open mic community (yeah we're running at a deficit-fumes-and-still-community-donations, no savings, all 16 comedy judge volunteers, and yeah we could use some 25SP,50SP,100SP,150SP,200SP delegation also :P):
[For Anyone Else Reading] If you don't know what @ComedyOpenMic / #ComedyOpenMic is, this will help you learn more:
Check This Out:
Hear Me Fucking Roar
https://steemit.com/comedyopenmic/@idikuci/hear-me-fucking-roar-or-comedy-open-mic-or-round-8-or-entry-2-or-bitch
@carlnash, I don't know how much sway you may or may not have with the @curie group, but what @dj123 is saying is very logical and business minded.
I was once touched my @curie... It was such a beautiful day. I remember being so excited about finally getting recognized on Steemit. I thought surly that my novel was finally going to get a bit of a boost to it's five person following. But in reality, no one new really seemed to see it, as I got a total of zero new viewers in following posts. Don't get me wrong, I'm very thankful for the curie visit. It gave me enough SP to not run out of bandwidth going forward, while empowering me to give a bit more while upvoting.
I for one believe that a reformatting to a more user driven/engaged Curie would dramatically help Steemit as a platform, while bolstering @curies delegations on a more organic level.
AHA...you get it!
the spirit of Curie's goal of rewarding meritocracy should not focus primarily on the $ rewards, but as many rewards as possibly to be bestowed upon......aka followers, engagement, recognition, etc, etc1.
the power of entities such as Curie is not just it's SP, delegated SP, and hefty community wallet, but leaning on it's community influence.....like say engaging it's >17,300 Followers and passing the power to each little Steemian with active engagement (not just a link)......that's a ton of Power & Influence that can be multiplied and shared down to the fishes when we start thinking outside the box
ok here's a summarized example....... imagine if instead of only getting a $60 upvote from Curie.....you get instead $30 AND 1000 more viewers (10 dolphins, 3 whales, and many hundreds of 200-1000SP Minnows)..... all giving you an average of $6 in your next 100 quality post = $600.....and Appreciation and Feedback.......don't need much logic to see which is way-way more powerful to reward, retain, and reach out to a broad spectrum of meritocracy
Note: the example of $60 to $30 upvote reduction is to allow Curie to cast it's net wider so many-many more will receive optics, recognition, inclusivity.....personally I think Curie should only be $6!
Note: with the economic crisis now....the buying power of low avg wage in Venezuela has dropped from $25/month to a scary $5/month due to extreme goods scarcity. I think every new Steemians should be happy with a bonus $6 from Curie, and earn the other $54 from the patronage of other Steemians! Now...that's closer to a genuine social meritocracy (not just elite talent and ability....but the merit of the effort, growth, and encouragement for broad nurturing of communities and organic retention)
1. update: other rewards includes but not limited too rise in the price of steem, constantly rising rep, returning recognition, engagement to keep raising the bar, new fresh blood followers, experimentation, etc, etc**
Hey thanks for pointing this out DJ, I had missed it when you originally commented. Lots to take in here, I need to sit with it and digest for a bit before I respond. Thanks for the ideas and input! Much love - Carl
When it comes to Steemit, @dj123 is a mover and a shaker. And that is no fat joke.
Realmente eres un visionario @dj123 y admiro todo el trabajo realizado en #comedyopenmic . Esta propuesta me parece estupenda para los nuevos ingresos en Steemit, y no solo ellos sino tambien los "no tan nuevos" que publican contenidos de calidad y no son apoyados, el curie garantiza no solo un apoyo metálico sino la lectura real de los contenidos.
Gold!
Hey Gnashy / @carlgnash freaking hold on to this gold man! Jesus
And for gods sake dj, I am mining your brain henceforth!
U dont want to loose Einstein genes... Do you carlgnash? U r lucky if u get one with such genes.... Roar with him..
@carlgnash's Tesla bro. Einstein ain't nuttin looool.
You've got quite the brain! Nice write-up!
Good idea @dj123.
That way, the small account opportunities to grow will be done.
If they only accept from whales, small fish never grow, but there are billions of small fish out there and including me.
Sounds good - though I need to think on it further. Great way to find more curators though.
Thanks for everything you do to encourage real content creators on this platform. I'll delegate 1k and resteem this :)
That means a lot to this community. We appreciate your believing in Curie and supporting her 😍.
Nice! Thank you for supporting a curation team that has made the difference for me as a writer on Steemit. It's heartening to see larger delegations coming in!
Mate, you're awesome.💚
good man!
Challenge, where you can win up to 100s $SD!
If you want to, you can try it here:
https://steemit.com/contest/@guessandgain/guess-and-gain-6-2-day-win-usd
@curie is the reason I didn't abandon Steemit the second time I decided to give it a go. I was lucky enough to have several of my early posts earn an upvote, and this was most likely an integral part in developing my following today.
I strongly commend the team behind curie for everything that they do - they're part of the reason the steem blockchain is such an appealing place for content creators.
I've edited this post to include the below image: (A proof of delegation, totalling 100SP)
Thank you curie, and its curators; for all that you have done for me and my engagement with this platform.
Maybe you should post your Curie story under #mycuriestory tag. Would love read it.
I've actually just started drafting an outline :)
I've published it here.
Same here holoz0r. I remember my first Curie vote like it was yesterday. Only $20 back them, when Steem was worth a dime, but it got my attention nonetheless.
To see Curie scale back would break my heart but I lack resources to do much about this one. Rooting from the sidelines that someone can make a sizable delegation here.
edit: Reading other responses here makes me feel like a loser, so I'll go ahead and delegate 50SP in a minute to do my part. You got me
Good for you @holoz0r
This project has to be supported!
Even if you've never had a @curie vote (like me!), the project is doing its best to promote the best content and keep these producers engaged.
Wow that is awesome Asher! Many thanks!
thanks you so much for your supported @abh12345
so i know i am going to get beat up on this, and downvoted, and just start an all around shit storm but i have to ask. Aren't they supposed to spread the love. When i went and looked at their outgoing votes last night steemotion had over 300 votes (sorry i did not take a screen shot) from them in the last 7 days. This morning when i just now checked it had rolled over to him having 41 votes right now
So in the name of being educated on a subject can someone inform me of why this would happen. sorry if this comes off as me being a dick, i am not trying to be. I am just a numbers guy and those numbers seem off.
[EDIT] April 10th, 2018 10:56pm UTCHey @doomsdaychassis thanks again for bringing this to our attention. You appear to have spotted some scamming going on that received support from Curie through a curation trail we followed. I am actively investigating to shut it down ASAP. Thanks for your service to the community! Cheers - Carl
[/EDIT]Hi @doomsdaychassis, So first I noticed that you had this sorted by count. These are TINY % votes, and they are coming from the @curie vote trailing a sub-community's curation team. Curie supports a number of interest and regional specific sub-community curation teams with a vote follow at a very small vote %. The most famous of these sub-communities is probably #steemstem but the entire list of sub-communities that Curie supports is published every Sunday in the "Weekly Update" on the @curie blog. Each sub-community has its own guidelines and is an independent operation (to be clear, a sub-community is not Curie, the curation is not done by Curie curators, etc.). Because of the number of these sub-communities that Curie supports, and the tiny vote % for each vote that Curie casts following the trail of the sub-community curators, sorting by vote count is beyond pointless. If you go check the @steemotion blog, you will see that these are TINY votes. E.g. in past day that account received 8 Curie votes, but the SUM TOTAL of pending payout on all 8 posts is < $3! I can't tell at a glance which sub-community this author is receiving support from, but it is obviously not a big deal in any case. The Curie vote is at such low % that the Curie vote and trail isn't even showing up in most of these posts among the list of top voters because the votes are coming in at such negligible %. The majority of the (small in the first place) payout on @steemotion's posts upvoted by Curie is not actually coming from the @curie vote and trail.
The website you are using is really not very useful at all for an account like Curie that makes a TON of votes, as the website limits results to top 250; sorting by weight is slightly more useful here (and you will see that @steemotion drops off the list if sorted by weight), but the TOP vote receiver by weight only received .61% of the Curie outgoing vote weight in the time period. A much more useful website is http://steemreports.com which will allow you to see ALL votes. Here is last 2 weeks outgoing votes from @curie:
Then why even trail the a sub-communities' curation teams? If the impact and reward is so small? I see this in different places, where one vote leads a large number of tiny, tiny upvotes. In reading about HF20, those tiny votes will just become 'dust' and be sent to null anyway. I've wondered about this for awhile, so thanks for your comment that explains part of what's going on.
The short answer is that Curie sets the follow % for the vote trail, and then it is up to the sub-community curation teams how they use their votes. Some sub-communities e.g. #steemstem are much more conscientious in parsing out their vote power, giving large enough % votes that the Curie follow vote is still meaningful. Other sub-communities have decided to spread their vote % out far and wide; the mechanics of a trailing vote necessarily mean that if you are trailing a vote at a reduced %, and the original vote is actually cast at a low % to begin with, the trailing vote is going to be tiny. The bigger point here is that each sub-community's operations are independent from Curie. Curie has set the cap for total vote % of the follow, but the sub-communities have freedom to determine how to best use it. Some of decided to opt for spreading it out to a very large # of recipients, even if that means the reward going out to each is quite small.
Thanks for the explanation.
so this guy is just gaming the vote by posting a stolen pic with one sentence under it stating that the rights belong to the photographer with out even bothering with a source?
Ah, digging farther it looks like Curie has already removed support from that author. If you visit steemd.com/@steemotion you can see that the Curie upvote (small as it was to begin with, and coming from sub-community follow, and not part of normal curie operations), has been unvoted from his posting still in payout.
how recently? because as I stated earlier he had over 300 votes from them last night if memory serves me right. I was just sitting there drinking a beer thinking " how is this mother F'er getting over a vote a day from them? " I hope they go through and check everything going on internally because as everyone knows they just droped out of the top 20 witnesses and if they keep letting this stuff slide they will keep going down. People are getting tired of the reward pool abusers and unfortunatly I think curie is aiding a lot of these abusers that have found a way to game the system while noone is looking.
Looks like votes were removed 22 hours ago. it is not possible to review and police every vote going out from the sub-communities that Curie supports; on the other hand, every large vote that curie casts as part of actual Curie operations is human reviewed twice, first by a Curie curator, and then by a Curie reviewer. I can tell you that very few, if any, accounts that are giving out large rewards in the form of upvotes have two humans reviewing each post before a large upvote goes out.
The sub-community upvotes on the other hand are not large, and are not a part of Curie curator/reviewer operations. You understand what a vote trail is right? I didn't explain that previously as I assumed it was self-explanatory, but perhaps I should have explained. When I say that the Curie vote follows the vote trail of the sub-community curation teams, that means the sub-community is the one reviewing the post and deciding to upvote it (not Curie!). Curie is supporting those sub-communities' curation efforts with a "vote trail" which means that the Curie vote will automatically be cast behind the vote of the sub-community curation team, at a reduced % of the original vote strength cast by the sub-community. We are talking very small votes there; while the total number of votes that Curie casts through sub-communities is large, as a % of total curie outgoing vote weight they are small. The votes cast by @curie after a post has been submitted by a Curie curator and reviewed by a Curie reviewer, on the other hand, are large.
As noted previously, the sub-community curation teams are not a part of Curie. Curie follows their vote trail at a small %. There are hundreds and hundreds of votes cast daily by the sub-community curation teams that Curie supports. It is not possible to review every one of these votes - the majority of the Curie votes coming in behind a sub-community curation team are < $5 votes, and most are FAR smaller than that. Curie is already running at a deficit maintaining manual review of every large vote that Curie casts through Curie curators / reviewers - it takes time to review posts. Curie lists the sub-communities and lists the Steem usernames of each sub-community's leaders on the @curie blog's weekly update - this is done precisely so that if there is an issue with a sub-community votes, it can be taken up directly with the sub-community. If an author being supported by a sub-community turns out to be plagiarizer/scammer, Curie will of course remove the upvotes (as happened here).
yes i understand a vote trail. On that note should the higher ups of curie review who they are trailing? How often do they review these things? It is tax time here in the USA so maybe it is time for curie to audit themselves on some internal level of what is going on. I realize they are huge and it will take some effort but they are going to have to sometime or else they will become a feeding trough for scammer piglets.
edit: it seems like we are trying to say the same thing except i am more pissed about what is going on here.
Well for one thing, the votes had been removed 16 hours before your comment here - so obviously it had already been caught and corrected. Two of the founders of Curie, as "high up" as there are in Curie operations, are @donkeypong and @kevinwong and they have actually removed themselves mostly from "regular" Curie activites and have dedicated their time to supporting and monitoring the sub-community teams (@donkeypong supporting/monitoring the regional specific sub-communities that receive Curie support; and @kevinwong supporting/monitoring the interest-specific sub-communities that receive Curie support). So yes, Curie higher ups are already doing exactly as you suggest.
Listen it isn't like I am not angry when a plagiarizer or spammer gets a reward. But I also have the big picture of Curie operations in mind. In past two weeks, 1729 votes outgoing from @curie and 1679 of those were to unique authors. That is 97%. The remaining 3% of authors that received multiple upvotes from @curie during that time period were largely from the sub-communities, and certainly it is not the case that all or even many of those were given to spammers/scammers/plagiarizers. The Curie vote record stands up to close inspection, and indeed, more so than any other major account I can think of. I would be interested to see what account you think is doing a better job than Curie in ensuring that outgoing votes are both spread out to a broad number of authors, and has instituted manual review of EVERY post that receives a large upvote.
Glad I could be of assistance. Thank you for hearing me out.
I was going to say it would probably be a person that was curied and was designated as a person that would receive a small curie community upvote to keep the person engaged yet when I looked at the content of the account well I have some questions as well.
Given the amount is really small but a vote to that account and 7 votes in one day does make me scratch my head.
I think it is a perfectly normal question
https://steemit.com/colorchallenge/@steemotion/colorchallenge-fridayblue-skull-0cc57d545d483
this is a 1 sentence post saying the photo isn't his and curie upvoted it. all of his posts are trash
this is pissing me off now that i dig deeper. they just lost my witness vote that i had for them
I still believe in what Curie does and by bringing this to light they can make steps to investigate their trail on a community vote.
I will still retain my vote to curie and the witnesses that support them.
i can respect that. Another poster pointed out that @curie is now going back and taking their votes away from that poster. If they review what they are doing and i can check in and see for myself i will vote for them again. I am just tired of people abusing the system around here. I believe in steemit and I delegate some of my limited steempower to @newbieresteemday because i believe they are here to do good. It makes me mad when i see curie resources and votes going to trash that could be going to newbies that are pouring their hearts and souls into their posts for absolutely nothing because some A hole figured out how to get daily vote by using a certain tag or something.
I saw that Carl answered you on this and it was good that you pointed it out.
Small community votes and trails would not be as scrutinized as their bigger votes.
Even in our local community, I have a few trails and when I saw that mine was being abused I removed myself from that trail.
That is what we need in a decentralized platform for people to care and question how things are done. We need people to be accountable for and know the power they hold when giving out votes that have trails.
Interesting. I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask. Why is one account getting six votes per day? And the second on the list is getting three per day?
you can go to steem world and the top 250 register for the last 7 day. if i scroll clear down to number 250 that guy has recieved 3 votes in the last 7 days. Just saying
Hi @ats-david. You were mentioned by @apolymask as a witness our team should keep an eye on. I will definitely do so seeing that you are engaging in here!
See my detailed reply above :)
Hey @doomsdaychassis. We run into each other here of all places. I just found out today that @curie has supported some of the same authors 10+ times. I thought they spread their upvotes around and only shared 2-3 upvotes per author, but then again, I'm still learning about curie and witnesses myself. Interesting point there!
Edited: I looked up steemotion with the curie bot, the upvotes are from community support. Meaning this account has received a total of 93 upvotes for curie community support, but the upvote value is minimal, in the 0.36% range.
You should check out Asher's (@abh12345) curie post. There are accounts there that have received 10+ upvotes from curie and they don't even support curie as a witness! (Not saying that is a requirement for curie support)
yeah, i feel like even making this post just put a huge target on my back but that is the story of my life. I hope bringing this to light motivates them to do what they were meant to be rather than keeping down this new path of circle jerking the same people. This could be the very reason that they got dropped out of the top 20. Maybe curie needs to do an internal review of what is going on and what needs to be fixed.
An internal review would be for curie to decide. I have seen some of the same authors receive curie support, and seeing Asher's post, I know many of the same authors receive curie support. Some are small community support so I agree those could be ruled out. They are there to encourage budding talent. Some though are big curie upvotes supporting the same individuals.
I thought it an interesting read that many of them are not even supporting curie as a witness!
i stopped over and stirred the pot a bit. lets see how things shake out :)
I'll stop over to read your boiling witch brew later, lol. I have to get back to work. I don't make enough (any) on steemit to lose my day job.
thank you @ats-david and @maverickinvictus for seeing what i am seeing. It is nice to have someone higher up the food chain agreeing with me. I thought for sure i was going to get downvoted to hell and back for this one. you might stop by this post about curie delegation and see if anyone finds a diffrent point of view or reasoning on why this is happening. Maybe one of you gentleman could go upvote my post and bump it up tot he top, it is lost in the mix right now with my tiny $.12 vote. thanks
Very sad to see the biggest curation project, is not receiving enough support. I hope the steem team sees that these projects are very worthwhile to support.
Yeah it is interesting but I won't comment here. I certainly personally would love to see both Curie and @OCD receive more official support as two of the only ways that a curator of good content can actually receive support and a return on time spent curating. The curation reward mechanic is broken.
I hope the program finds the support it deserves.
I want to ask a question tough
@curie supports specific type of authors? like scientific articles etc?
I wonder if people like me who write about lets say philosophy or free writing could be reviewed?And if so should we use a spcific tag?
Thanks in advance
Curie supports most tags. There is no specific tag to be used, you will be found.
Curie supports a very broad range of posting. There are only a few topics that are not within the Curie guidelines: Steemit-related posting (posting about Steemit / Steem), religious and political posting. And for those last two, what is outside of the guidelines is religious or political posting that advocates one position; a fair and balanced academic review of a religious or political topic for instance would be welcome :) There are other guidelines though (not topic related), you can visit us on Discord (link in the post near the top) to read the current guidelines in the pinned notes in #announcements c hannel. Cheers
thank you for your responce
OK - I just delegated you guys some SP. It's a no-brainer, since I wouldn't have it if not for your regular support. @curie's vote, early on, was key in convincing me to blog here rather than elsewhere. And while I don't really do it for the money, getting the occasional boost when I put the effort in on a longer or more thoughtful piece really makes the experience rewarding.
Also, I appreciate that @curie supports so many posts that are about subjects other than Steemit. The platform will never grow if all outsiders see are articles about the platform!
This is the best part of @curie, bringing more content than just crypto into the fold. The focus on diverse, original content means that there's always something excellent to read that curie brings to the attention of the world.
And therein, lies the value, you read articles that you wouldn't normally have an interest in, and learn things about things you didn't know were even things before!
Thanks @winstonalden! You are really highlighting what I think is one of the biggest things that Curie does RE supporting posts on subjects other than Steemit (and I would probably throw "posts other than crypto" into that same mix). The variety of posting that is upvoted by Curie is amazing. The delegation is much appreciated. Much love - Carl
Oh yes - other than crypto for sure!
Could you imagine buying the New York Times ten years ago, and it's just a big business section, and half the articles are about the New York Times?
LOL! What a perfect analogy :)