You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How should Steemit Inc decentralize their stake?
On the contrary, you have a far higher chance of gaining an audience on Steem than anywhere else on the internet. This is because curation is incentivized, and you have plenty of great projects like Curie, steemSTEM and OCD (in addition to many individual curators) looking out for the best posts by new authors.
See, that's a huge problem in itself, the system is so broken that we need super-powered groups to curate, when it's something that could be done by the community itself if it wasn't for the fact that new users' attempts at curation are next to meaningless because of the math. As far as content creators go, I do admit that because of the dearth of talent on the platform it's quite easy for incoming star writers and content producers to get noticed by the groups you mentioned.
I can name dozens of great individual curators if you want. I named the groups because they are easy to recall. As for new users, they are free to power up and curate.
Yes, of course there are also individuals who curate. That's the issue, your recommendation is that they throw money at the problem, why would any sane person do that when they already have other social media accounts where their vote has equal weight by default and their social circles are already hooked in? Everyone on steemit is either heavily invested or trying to make money, turning steemit into a workplace more than a recreational site.
Another side note, VC never has the users in mind, I hope a large share isn't chunked off to some assholes who just want to flip it.
Because other social networks don't pay you curation rewards.
Curation rewards as currently implemented are a joke. You have to upvote that content within 30 minutes, and they want to further reduce that to 15 minutes in the next fork.
So, you have to be continuously glued to the screen to curate and reap a curation reward. Or use bot farms.
If curation rewards didn't have a time window it would work better. But then ofcourse, every bot and user will try to maximise gains by upvoting as many posts as possible. This points to another problem with Steem.. there is nothing to lose for the upvoters. There needs to be some negative feedback to the voters (they need to lose something in the present in order to gain something in the future).
You're incentivized to vote after 30 minutes. Within the first 30 minutes you pay a penalty, but after 30 minutes you keep all of your curation rewards.
You can't just vote anything, as you have very limited voting power. And you'll only earn good curation rewards on discovering good content and voting before larger stakeholders do.
Oops; I stand corrected! I had understood it when I joined Steem, then got confused by some discussions last week. Thanks for correcting me.
No, at any given moment, there will be some new good posts that have just been published. You don't have to curate all to curate some.
A bigger issue in my mind is the fact that curation rewards, intended to reward manual and intelligent curation showing "proof of brain", can be reliably beaten by just automatically front-running vote selling bots.
Agreed partly, because for some timezones that are not very active, the good posts are usually only visible the next day.
Totally agreed. This and a lot of other problems are the typical "tragedy of the commons". They could be solved by removing the concept of a common reward pool and tying votes to actual transfer of currency.
Steem is still in it's early stages.
We have to implement changes to better the system. (Apparently that includes halving the curation reward window).
Ganging up to get more rewards is reward pool rape.
It disadvantages everbody that doesnt join in.