RE: Investing through delegation and curation
It's amazing how much anti-capitalism is going on in here. Can Steem thrive with being anti-capitalism? I don't think so. To think people have a hidden agenda when they give a tip...
Do you really think I wrote that to "shill" something? Just lol, I always speak from my heart. If I tip someone and someone comes and steals that away well I have a hard time to see it thrive in the long term. If it's anti-capitalism and panics over a small tip ---> Will fail, as it's not empowering anymore. But about policing every word to create a yes men comment section. That will completely make the whole place non-vibrant and boring. It becomes about "mine", instead of a shared thing.
And I'm not saying you don't need curators. But it's a logical fact that Content Creators is doing most of the work. Curation will mostly be automated. It's not many that do it manual. Even if they did they are doing 10x less energy spend than a content creators. Yes there are exceptions. But Creators they should have the most wealth. Or it's communism. History has proven communism always fails.
"How did you not learn anything by being all over the posts where this has been discussed?" I wrote a 300-400 word comment to smooth. Never got a reply, @lordbutterfly still has authority on this question as he has been writing the most clear way why it will fail. He also never got a reply. That tells me everything I need to know. People care more about their Stake than human relationships and empower creators. Click upvote and only give around 50% is not a loving act. It's a selfish act as you know you get most back.
What I see is Stake holders getting pissed off at a few dollars here and there. They should be in thriving mode. Not realising that it will cause a brain drain effect as it's leech energy.
What will happen is low effort content creators + high stake holders will win. They want to cut off the healthy upcoming Middle Class of Content Creators.
I think you acidyo is one of the best high Stake holders in terms of integrity, but in the end I don't think this place can thrive on other high stake holders as human behaviour shows most will be selfish. You are not but the majority is. 50% would make it 10x worse.
...
Well this would sure change the game if you had moderators.
That would put content creators as the highest authority. By putting content creators at a higher authority than what it currently is. Now it's just that people create whatever without really focusing on 1 niche or community. As those systems hasn't been built. So at the moment it only exist Stake holders that are a bit over powered and then smaller content creator accounts at a few thousand Steem.
It all comes down to making it a bit more serious then and have people in proper roles. And that all play their role well. With the current system it's just a game where everyone tries to grab a big slice with no accountability. But then it seems still that a proper system is at least a couple of years away. I do agree that ideally 50/50 could work potentially in the future and as people reach a higher level of abundance. But with the current way things are being run I would say stick to 75/25. People will surely just automate more with a current 50/50 plan.
And I can get a feel of many high Stake holders that they are not really caring that much about real content and never will. They only have limited Tokens. Content Creators have limitless material. They are what creates the magic, they are what pulls in people to the system. When you empower these content creators a long time and nurture them they will be the best authority to curate new material. As they have earned their role and position. They have made themselves vulnerable by producing something real.
A content creator has usually way more influence than a high stake holder as they daily can create new connections with others that has invested equal buy-in. I am still very skeptical about a high stake holders that wonders about ROI every single second when they already have enough to live in abundance for the rest of their life. Clearly the highest ROI is to invest in people producing quality content and leverage human energy.
Lavish abundance should be re-invested into people with massive buy-in and that can master leverage. I'm just too worried 50/50 would create more mediocre stuff. When I came into Steem Jan 2018, it was the lavish abundance of a dtube vote that made me invest thousands. If 50% would have been taken away I'm not really sure if I would have had buy-in. Some content creators are a million times better than others. So they should have way more for that. As that will inspire others to act the same and aim up. People have always loved the idea of a hero.
Yes this is very much true! Thanks for a great logical comment that covered some stuff I never would have thought about. This is what makes up big value on a Blockchain. Real comments with great input.
Thanks for your more professional in-depth comment on this subject. I will think about it a bit to see what my views are.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to him, I couldn't bother after seeing that pointed out all over the place.
I see what you did here trying to take credit for the above comment XD This comment from @kendrahill is not talking about the same system as High Stake holders is talking about. This comment is talking about more empowerment to content creators hands. If you make 50/50 system wrong then it will surely end up in communist system with lots of low effort stuff be produced.
Especially this part is talking about more empowerment to content creators:
But if you just make a system where High Stake holders can run wild then it will surely cause Chaos.
If you are just taking this out:
You are taking it out of context. The context above is extremely relevant. Or else distortion effects will very easily be created.
The 50/50 system will work better with free downvotes on the table for low effort content and bid botted garbage.
Free downvotes will give power to random users that hasn't earned Stake for a long period of time. It also gives less incentive to hold Steem Power as it wouldn't give you power.
The core thing is people want to advertise. And Steem currently doesn't provide a good service for this at the moment. This is not the users fault. Human behaviour will be as it always has been. So it's not that the people are evil. It's just that they are using what is being offered to them. As the supply of manual curators are small. People realize it's best to earn an ROI by themselves.
Also promotion stuff barely make any big ROI. You have to offer real value and get organic support to make it effective. Low effort content is just the nature of humans. Most people have no clue how to create high effort content. That is just how life works competitive wise. But competition wise people that offer low effort stuff won't win out in the long run. As it will become more competitive as time goes on.
It's expensive to create good content. So it needs a constant flow of massive value coming in.
Also about your comment "@smooth didn't reply to me", just because someone stops responding to me doesn't mean you have a great debate going or that you won the argument.
If you really wanted to tip someone for their comment then do so through the tipping system, not changing the order of comments through bid bot votes on comments and then proceed to shill another blockchain knowing your reply is at the top.
I don't just filter my comment section based on people that agree with me or give me compliments else I wouldn't have voted up his comment asking where this will place content creators and their rewards.
I don't really know how these changes are going to effect the platform but anything than what we got now will surely improve it.
He read it, it's disrespectful either way to just ignore it, I won the argument as I had the best arguments that I covered. Not a single high Stake holder has given any real arguments that works outside of their own filter bubble.
If you can't tip on Steem Blockchain then that is super silly. It's clearly a sign that people are not in a thriving mode. That someone get's into panic mode over 2 dollar spent. Would a billionaire care? No. Logically I was the most caring here as I gave a gift. It made the comment come on top. I gave the most therefore I was the most generous and should have been at the top.
Also if you can't talk about other Crypto projects here without panic mode starting to happen then that is also mega silly. If anything in this industry succeeds big then it grows the whole industry.
It reminds me of the Samsung vs. Apple wars when I did Tech videos. We are all in the same boat either way doesn't matter what project it is.
I also don't see the point with being against promotion services. This is the biggest empowerment tool of all time! People can empower themselves without having to be dependent on a manual Human curator. If we go with the idea that most people are good then clearly people paying out their own salary is the best system.
In the end it comes down to Trust. If people think others have bad intentions. I only see good in people. As most are living in scarcity. When they get out of scarcity most in general behave awesome.
Also it's quite obvious that content creators are being paid too much, this is of course not for everyone because of how the reward pool works some people are gaming it to make the most themselves which to them seems like low effort earnings considering content creators and witnesses are right now the biggest sellers of Steem, not curators.
Not to mention the value of this content that is rewarded here being posted somewhere else would not get a fraction of the rewards, not to mention we aren't even generating any income through ads nor do 99% of people bother sharing their own content onto other platforms to generate traffic.
What you are talking about is automation that will happen either way. The future systems will have automated curation. As it will be more effective. There is nothing that points to humans wanting to move more to manual. Most want to click a button and then it's done. This is the ideal system to outsource humans and create systems where people can earn an ROI and do good work. Basically paying your own salary. Without any drama needed. Then everyone can be in their own community/niche have their own system going. Without having to pay attention to what others are up to every second.
Acid why would you say content creators are getting payed too much? Are you saying they are getting payed too much in relation to curators or are you saying they are getting payed too much in general?
Theres quite a big difference there.
The first is based on disagreement of what brings more value to the platform and thats a disagreement in philosophy i dont care to get into. Content vs money locked in SP.
If its the second thing then i disagree completely. Some work thats being done here is completely underpayed if you take into account global (not steem) standards set by the content creator respective fields.. And that has little to do with those gaming the system.
Are you saying that is the fault of content creators that game the system or is it the fault of curators and curation projects that are ineffective at what they do and look to have as equal reward distribution as they can.
Big users who either post and vote-trade daily to take max rewards from the pool are getting paid too much for their content compared to what they would be making on any other site. What they do is pretty similar than to just delegate to a bid bot and earn close to 100% back that way. Curation is quite broken in general where it doesn't matter what content you produce you get the same amount of votes if you are a big account or have the right friends. So yeah its mostly about your second point.
In a perfect system quality content no matter what account size would get the highest rewards, not only that but also the people creating the content and the way they treat their following. Today we are seeing people only posting their daily 2 shit posts - setting up bots to votetrade the same amount with others as if they were self-voting 100% and then they leave without giving two shits what their followers or readers are saying. Same goes for those buying votes to "promote" their content, many are just doing it for the profit of buying those votes which should not be profitable. Look at the posts in trending right now, some of those are literal ads to other cryptocurrencies and they are getting a positive ROI back from "advertising". No platform in the world gives you rewards for advertising something nor should it.
With free downvotes I can see this changing radically as these people know they should not be making these rewards in a more fair system and they won't be able to do much if the majority of curators are downvoting their posts to at least make it cost them to advertise on our platform, same thing will go for vote-traders and other low effort garbage.
The downvotes combined with 50% curation will incentivize curators to reward more quality instead since quality won't be downvoted as much meaning they will get much bigger rewards from posts that have not been downvoted so they won't risk voting on garbage posts knowing it might get downvoted and we can see a better system evolve.
I know it may cause a lot of problems such as retaliations, ganging up to downvote others out of spite, etc. I hope the community will work together to resolve these issues and that the new system will in general work out much better over time than the zombie state we got now.
See, thats exactly whats wrong with this proposal. It makes people jump to what could be best described as the "most intuitive conclusion" without actually having to look deeper into their arguments.
Its great that you have a lot of faith in "humanity" but the facts point into another direction.
We need to try and analyze behavior patterns before making such a drastic change.
Im sorry to say but not a single thing you said here is likely to happen.
I appreciate your positive outlook but everything points in another direction..
Under 1. you just put all your faith into the hands of a few whale curators that might or might not know whats best. Might or might not increase their effectiveness. You widened the overall wealth gap between have and have nots.
Under 2. that standards will be raised? Not really. If people dont leave they are actually more likely to increase their content volume because you just cut their earnings. Instead of putting hard work into a 1-2 post/videos per day... They will put in less work per post and increase the number of posts made.
... high, low quality, etc, it doesnt matter. .. What matters is increased centralization in token distribution.
On the 3. point.... This proposal makes upvote buying cheaper and completely destroys the trending page. Trending will actually look far worse then it does now.
Unfortunately no one is willing to even consider that, because large accounts, even if they are nice enough to curate, like @acidyo here, the prospect of having such a big boost to earnings just closes their mind to any valid criticism. Witnesses follow in suite because these curation accounts are vocal and have indebted thousands of people with their work over these last 2 years..
Not until passive investors start taking back their witness votes will witness resolve start to buckle.
anyways...
..