You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change

in #steem7 years ago

Changing reward budgets per post could be problematic.

First, there is the issue of user education. Currently, users know that they get paid for posting and curating. The math is publicly available in the source code, but doesn't need to be advertised to everyone for them to understand how to use Steem. If we added such an option then it would need to be reflected in the UI so users knew how much of the rewards they could earn.

Second, while this might start as a way for different interfaces to incentivize different content, it would not stay that way for long. Savvy users would see that a configurable percentage creates a market for potential voters. If there are identical posts, one with 25% curation rewards and the other with 75%, which one will most people vote on? The answer is both, but at some ratio defined by the curation rewards curve.

This would turn curation into a market. How much of your rewards are you willing to give to curators for votes? This a slight change from the intended mentality today that curation is budgeted for rather than authors paying curators for their votes. The difference is subtle, but the perception of ownership over tokens is a powerful one. This is why many users get upset when they are down voted. The rewards are not yours until payout. But that doesn't prevent users from feeling like the rewards are theirs as soon as they receive an upvote.

Sort:  

the perception of ownership over tokens is a powerful one.

It's powerful but is it beneficial or detrimental? I think it's the latter, the general entitlement mentality is something we want to get rid of.

This would turn curation into a market. How much of your rewards are you willing to give to curators for votes?

It's already a market. How much SBD are you willing to pay to minnowbooster for votes?

Configurable rewards will encourage real curation instead of vote buying/selling.

To provide a response to each point:

  1. The premise here operates under the assumption that people care about curation rewards, which most likely the vast majority of the userbase would not. Those who are playing the curation game should absolutely know what they're voting on and at what ratio, but most users won't care.
  2. Those savvy users should have the right to do so, and use that as a tool for post promotion or alternate content types. If they want their post to be highly visible they should set the curation rewards at 75%.
  3. Is turning curation into a free market a bad thing?

"Is turning curation into a free market a bad thing?"

Ackshually... It is.

A society is more than an economy. Given the existence of folks that literally care about nothing else but money, creating a market for free speech inevitably causes freedom to speak to become treated as a commodity - and this demeans freedom itself. Monetizing freedom results to some degree in slavery for profit.

OTOH, it's preferable to being demonetized on ideological grounds, or being forced to listen to the speeches of Marvin Bush at gunpoint, until you pray for that sweet, sweet release only death can provide.

The market is unavoidable, so making it as free as possible is the best possible option for human freedom.

tl;dr Nope, it's the best answer.

Dear @vandeberg ;

I need any help to stop @grumpycat hurting innocent people.
We have to show that Steemit is bigger than any bully who is trying to impose his own rules by using his high SP on innocent people.
The post below is the summary of the situation :
https://steemit.com/life/@firedream/stop-the-grumpycat
Thank you for any help to stop the actions of @grumpycat.

Best Regards.

FD.