RE: Steem - An Honest Look Inside
I'm super bullish on Steem right now. Our up and down movements seem to come at opposite times of the larger market lately. If this keeps happening it will be really easy to make smart trades.
Curation should be eliminated entirely. Not because Authors deserve more, but because it's totally broken and easily gamed.
Curation makes absolutely no sense. It isn't large payouts that curate content. Every frontend of Steem has full power of what content gets displayed. Hooking curation into the consensus layer of the platform and forcing it on everyone is a huge mistake.
Regardless, I'm super bullish on Steem, and so will everyone else when the next crypto mania comes around and Bitcoin transactions spike up to $50 a pop. Trickle-down theory is a model that actually works in an open source economy.
Removing curation would break the whole system. If you want a system without curation, I would start out with a new project, instead of removing one of the main pillars of this one.
I don't see how curation brings anything to the table. Like the entire tipping model, it relies on altruism. No curator is going to upvote a post that's already been upvoted, without altruism. Why are we kicking back money to the biggest stake holders when the system relies on them giving away short-term gains?
Forced curation only makes sense in a blind bidding system where that critical payout information is hidden from the curators (impossible?). Otherwise they can just game the system, but why try to game a broken lottery when you can just self-upvote? So why have curation at all?
The real suggestion in my post about it is to make curation optional on a sliding scale. Apply optional curation to posts AND resteems (referral link) to be determined by the content creator. That way any percentage could be selected by the person who actually owns the content.
It's hard to take you seriously when you just give a vague generic answer saying "Nope, that would just break everything." It wouldn't. Both systems rely on stake holders giving money away, plain and simple.
Not much is going to change either way, so the smartest thing to do is nothing, because showing the outside world that Steem is willing to drastically reallocate inflation on the whim of a few dozen people is like the worst idea ever.
I do appreciate your time in hearing me out, even if we don't see eye to eye. Thanks.
Give people free downvotes and they will use them.
Current curation is bringing more pro than cons though
True. Downvotes might have worked in the early days of Steem, while the community was small enough and filled with people having the same mindset/ideology, but it doesn't work anymore. Upvotes have a direct economic response - downvotes don't. So having downvotes costing the same as upvotes, but giving nothing in return, doesn't work.
I like that take a lot.
Indeed, I was so worried and busy finding arguments against the 50% curation rewards that I missed this fresh view: why is curation in the consensus layer at all ???
Posted using Partiko Android
Everyone can see that high payout doesn't mean better content.
It's a little harder to see that high payout doesn't even mean high visibility.
Steemit makes it a bit more obvious by pushing those "featured" posts down our throats in the feed. If you use Steemit.com, Steemit Inc is controlling everything you see.
people should be rewarded for creating content, not for bullying and chasing people away. Getting rid of curation would remove the incentive for downvoting, because it would no longer hurt the author. And people would continue creating content in stead of running away.