RE: Something Useful For Blockchain
You are a cruel person :)
Don't blame me, I'm very sensitive... ;-)
Well, I think (hope) we can rule out suicide. But of course some users will leave the platform or disappear into Upvu & Co. And so we have recognised them, the users who are here ONLY because of the rewards. Honestly? We don't need them! So this selection would mean the separation of the wheat from the chaff - the wheat will continue (well and committed) as before, the intersection will think about what they could improve in order to attract the attention of very normal curators or readers.
Less work, less talent - less reward. [related to blogging AND/OR developing]
In my opinion, this is the original idea that I have always advocated and propagated. I have had to take a lot of "scolding" for this: I was an antisocial capitalist. Everyone should get something.
Yes, the last sentence is even correct! The question is only "how". And also for this Steemit has to offer a lot. There is nothing in the white paper that says that everyone MUST blog or develop. If you can't do both, you don't need to (or shouldn't). The Steem also needs appreciative audiences (through engaged comments and/or votes). For that, on the one hand there is the lush CR (50%...!), on the other hand comments can (should) be voted. @afrog - I'd like to call him my mentor - has always said as a kind of maxim "don't disregard the comments as the spice of every article and a little income!" I can understand that with the current mentality of quite a few users, he has little interest in steem anymore. But I don't want to be unfair: this development is not new and could already be observed before the big fork in 2020.
Unfortunately, now we only have a few curators and 10,000 authors. The reasons are known.
Exactly. This imbalance must be brought back into balance. And in my opinion, as sorry as I am, this will only work (for the time being) without the involvement of a huge stakeholder. People have to understand that mass production will not get us anywhere. We need just as many (even more) interested readers. And they are only interested if the articles are also interesting. A vicious circle that must be broken with all our might.
What can Facebook offer that Steemit can't?
Audience! Reading audience! Readers who want (and expect) nothing more than to be entertained by articles. Readers who wouldn't even think of writing (sustainable) content themselves, because content production is simply not their talent.
But no, they are all on Facebook.
Oh, "back in the days" we had isolated FB influencers here who tried out the platform. What happened? Hardly anyone noticed them, because most of them were focused on their "I have to produce something now". There was also a lot of envy and resentment, because once they were noticed, there were suddenly (much, much better) competitors... Some were simply disregarded like hot potatoes.
I still have no idea how I could help the platform
I think if you keep doing exactly what you are doing in a loyal, honest way, you are already helping the platform enormously!
Just finished reading the interesting discussion on this post. Different perspectives and proposals have broaden my understanding of the platform. I will talk about one point raised by @chriddi:
We need loyal audience who just want entertaining content like on Facebook or Instagram etc and nothing more.
I'm more of an Instagram person so I will talk about it. It's interesting to see the effort micro-influencers put in their content. They don't get a penny for all their hardwork and sweat until they get a following of several thousands and hundreds of comments on each post. To get that level of engagement, they work really hard on their content in hopes of attracting audience and getting loyal audience requires constant hardwork and excellence.
Why can't we have that level of dedication on Steemit? Because we get rewards regardless of our followers and engagement on posts.
In most cases here, first we get rewards then we get audience (an sc01 upvote and then people come to see why a big upvote here). I believe curation means just that - curate content to make it trending for others to see. Only if it's reversed; let others (readers/small curators) find content first and then let big curators reward it.
A post shouldn't be rewarded unless it meets a certain standard and it should go for all authors out there. We see comments only on Engagement Challenge posts. Hardly few people bother to be as engaging on the posts outside the challenge. Once again, we see a could-be-useful initiative as merely a way of earning more rewards which destroys it's true purpose.
Like chriddi said, maybe wait for five days to see the engagement on a post, if it's got meaningful engagement then big curators can reward it with a generous upvote.
I think I said more or less the same what you guys already discussed but that was what my initial thoughts were after reading your points.
As always, you opened my eyes. Still, discussion is something very useful. It is now clear to me that Steemit's weakest point at the moment is its lack of readers. Not the lack of developers, not the small rewards, not the price of STEEM, not the lack of interest from the main owner. It is the insufficient number of readers that is the weakest point. If there was a large audience, there would be all of the above.
Having understood this, I immediately paid attention to:
It seems to me that very few people take advantage of this opportunity. And those who use only share their posts.
Maybe I should systematically share the posts I like the most? I will think about it. But I don't have cool social media accounts, I've always avoided them :-)
Thanks, I have more to think about.
Yes, even extremely important. Without discussions, weighing up the pros and cons and courageously trying out one approach or another, nothing will change here.
Me too. 🎵 Steemit was my first love and it'll be my last... 🎵
But you also bring me to other exciting questions.
Let's assume that we succeed in directing thousands of FB users to this platform. What do you think they would do? Would they be the desired audience? Or would they quickly think "Oh, wow, what rewards - I can do that too!" and start spamming the Steem and then disappear after some unsuccessful time? I fear the latter...
So I came up with the idea of how it would be to make curating more lucrative: Let's say 75% CR instead of 50% CR. All the authors will howl, but in the long run they will benefit too, because they will get an audience, more curators (among whom, under the conditions that it is worthwhile, will be investors) and maybe, perhaps, a more balanced Steem (because spamming might not be worth it anymore for 25% of a few cents). Of course, this would make Upvu and other bots even "richer", but maybe it's just a calculation that users won't delegate to them anymore (then they won't need to spam daily either) and prefer to use their SP for their own CR...
At first glance, this is a very good idea. But any idea can be spoiled. If it were as you suggest, I think many authors would leave the platform. Those who have delegated their SP to Upvu would remain. They would receive their curation rewards in liquid STEEM. Perhaps the result would be terrible.
Everything has advantages and disadvantages, everything can be exploited. At the same time, the law of action/reaction also prevails. Where no action takes place, no reaction (to which one can/must then react again) can follow.
Well, remlaps has elaborated on this idea and pointed out the great disadvantage of the public displeasure of "spoiled" authors... ;-)
Thank you for this post, which has inspired such a great discussion! Thanks also for the direct dialogue - I haven't enjoyed conversation on the Steem like this for ages!
I am also very grateful for the discussion. I know I have taken up a lot of your time. But I really learned a lot from our conversation. Thank you very much.