You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Update on Simplicity: Cutting Complexity with Steem 0.17.0
While not in favor of that much of split I do think curation rewards need to be higher... 75/25 is not nearly enough to make curation really worthwhile for most people or to really encourage many people to vote. Especially since early voters forgo some of that curation which makes the actual curation split somewhere in the low teens...
An author/curator split of something like 60/40 seems like it could work. It might still not be enough but it would be better. Some say that curation is not needed while I feel that curation is a great incentivisor to get the most people to vote...
Good points by the way about the curators being hundreds/thousands of people vs. a single author... hadn't thought about it like that before.
and don't forget that people that vote the first 30 minutes give more rewards to authors... so it isn't 75:25 but rather 88:12 !!! So a reverse make absolute sense because for the same reason it would not be 25:75 but about 38:62 (author:curators)
Unless the 30 minute penalty was also adjusted or thrown out :)
there was a discussion to adjust to 5-15 minutes...
throwing out would once again favor too much the bots I suppose
Curation is needed, but not the curation rewards. I, for one, would vote without curation rewards, and I think many of us would do.
I would too. I'm unconviced that curation rewards are the main incentive for voting, however often it is repeated; it is untested theory. It is the main incentive for using voting bots and otherwise gaming the system without caring about content. Another experiment to test the theory, perhaps?
Completely agree, curation rewards rewards bot voting much more than actual curation, making curation what it is right now: 10:1 ratio in some cases of votes to views. That alone is disparaging to any new user when they are obviously confronted with the fact that "people" vote for content that they haven't even read, and the other aspect that @beanz was arguing is that clearly it makes everyone compete with machines, and following that to the conclusion is that to compete with a machine you have to employ a machine. Remove curation rewards as people have incentive to vote and reward authors and it removes incentive to vote for rewards. Voting/curating is a fine endeavor but not necessarily worthy of any rewards, the rewards come intrinsically not extrinsically from allocating whatever portion your vote can from the reward pool.