You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Are You Seeing the Truth? What Is Your Vision of Steem?
50% is a good starting point IMO. It has the advantage of maximizing leveraged effect. Current curation is about 15%. Increasing that to 50% means shifting 35%, That's a reduction of 41% to author payouts (certainly a sting) and an increase of 233% to curators, which is dramatic and can easily have effects that need to be observed to really assess. Once you get to the point of parity, robbing Peter to pay Paul becomes more symmetric (10% increase to one is 10% decrease to the other) and far less dramatic in the relative effect. It may still be necessary or beneficial but I'd be in favor of trying 50% first.
Why have author rewards at all? Just key authors curate first. We need to turn curation up as high as possible.
Cool suggestion. I have passed it along to some other witnesses and major stakeholders for discussion.
Maybe eliminating author rewards would allow some simplification as well.
With all this crap out there the first upvote is almost as valuable to the platform as a good piece.
The thirty minute rule would give repeat authors all the curation rewards from front running vote bots that bet on sure thing authors. I think good authors would do quite well.
But more importantly, good curators would do better than now.
Philisophically authoring is an act of curation. Organizing and highlighting ideas and typing them up is not much different than organizing the platforms “posts” that show up on the front page by voting for them with an appropriate degree of voting power. The author curates his mind from invisible to visible and each subsequent curator increases (or decreases) that visibility.
Thanks for taking the idea to others. I recommended it last year or maybe even I. 2016 so I have thought of it for a while but I still think it’s a good one.
(No need for reply)