RE: Assume a can opener -- A critique of the snowflake plan
Because they would get more influence, they will be able to give more $ to their friend's post if they do.
Who cares about giving more money to their friends' posts if there's nothing in it for them? Do you go out and buy a bunch of stuff for your friends so that they can have more things for themselves? Who actually does this?
Why do you think people will still cast all their vote 30 min after a post was published?
Umm...they don't. Have you been watching vote times?
Why do you think people would still subscribe to bot if curation rewards are removed?
They wouldn't...because they simply wouldn't bother curating at all.
It's clear that voting behavior will change a lot.
Yes, it will change because there won't be any users.
The steem power that they bought can be sold back for fiat and will likely be worth more than what they initially paid for ( so their you have your ROI) .
This is an assumption not rooted in any real-world observation. How can your investment appreciate when nobody will be using the platform because there's no incentive except for bloggers? Where will the investment come from for bloggers to earn? Who will buy into the platform just to vote for other people to earn money? And who will buy any meaningful amount in order to make such blogging worth the time or at least more than any other site that pays for content?
I will say this again - the market for bloggers is vastly smaller than the market that consumes blogging content. The proposal is based on bad assumptions about behavior and incentives. The problems we see on Steemit are not a result of the existence of curation rewards.
this is a great point. Ive never come up with a precise number, but i suspect more than half of all curation rewards are forfeited in the reverse auction.
This is one of the things like bandwagoning and list voting. If what SF thought was casuing current behavior was really causing it, most people wouldn't vote for most things before the 30 minute mark.
Part of this is a game theory decision.... sometimes voting early and forfeiting some percent of curation rewards is a better outocme than voting later (and therefore with more people in front of you). But often, its just a decision made without any rational basis whatsoever.
That's not a good comparison. Like I said in my post steem power is similar to upgrades and power ups in games. People buy it because they like the game and want to gain influence/power in it.
Are you trying argue that bots will still vote at 30 min if curation rewards are removed?
The main reason user retention rate is bad is because people don't have fun on this site. What do you propose to make it fun?
You are not seeing the bigger picture. Steemit is just one site among many other sites that will use the steem blockchain. Many of these other sites will have very different models. Some site will be similar to facebook, where people will just document their lives to friends and family, these people should be able to send a few cents to each other. Do you think these people will want to go through the posts of people they don't know to curate content? The curation reward model is a flawed one for mainstream adoption and isn't going to create significant demand.
The only system that will attract a large audience is one where people buy steem power in order to have more influence in the system.
Curation rewards encourages bot voting and discourage people from commenting/participating in the platform because no one votes for comments.
I don't know exactly what problems you are refering to, but curation rewards are indeed not the main issue, the biggest problem is that 99.8% don't have fun because they have no influence on the platform.
"Who cares about giving more money to their friends' posts if there's nothing in it for them? Do you go out and buy a bunch of stuff for your friends so that they can have more things for themselves? Who actually does this?"
I sent a complete stranger, granted we were part of the same facebook group but I was never "friendly" or a "friend" to the person $1000 cash, through the mail (fuck legality), for nothing in return to do as he wished, simply because I knew that the person he was infatuated with/in love with was traveling across the country to meet with him (not a cupid move or a cupid fb group). People do all kinds of things when it comes with sharing and giving and there is no "real world" who does this in that sense.