RE: On Curation Rewards and Their Necessity
Before I begin, @ats-david, I am aware that you are a powerful figure within the steemit set-up and I am aware that I risk further ostracisation through voicing the opinions shared by many. I am just prepared to speak up. Should you wish to join the throngs who have seen what I say and ostracise me too, fire away! I am already riddled with bullets and have suffered as a result. I am just a bit more determined to see steemit succeed than that. I have studied the £$%& out of this thing and I am a fan of a magnificent idea with a crap leverage system which has been abused to hell, resulting in steem price today. Steem is not based upon anything but steemit to all intents and purposes. You might well guffaw at that - it just happens to be inviolably true.
"Curation rewards are the incentive for discovering and evaluating content. It is this reward that many users don’t quite seem to fully grasp, even though it’s likely the most important aspect of the platform."
Curation seems to ignore content and vote for reward, blindly.
"This may be true, but we also don’t need to pay people for creating content because many people will do it anyway – and they do."
Is that a justification for profiting off people who create content? This is the Google, Facebook argument which is incessantly decried by the same voices. The blockchain is supposed to even out the playing field, not make the curve steeper!
"This is true. Rewards are not as large for new users and other small stakeholders and they may receive nothing at all for curating many posts."
Let's be real: the ratio of earning is stacked well over 100,000 times less for a new user. The slave trade treated people better.
I have no ill-will against anyone personally. I do have ill-will against the sense of self-righteous entitlement to perpetrate a system of secrecy and unjustifiable leverage which drives the value of the enterprise into the dirt. The truth is that steem is actually violently over-valued, by about four fold because of the intransigent behaviours of the "justified".
I shall repeat. There is no personal ill-will within my words. There is a desire to see the success of steemit which is stronger than most and backed by some fairly hefty experience in business. Would you really expect a currency of which 80% is held by less than 100 people to have a value when its prospects have a history of retention akin to a greasy pole? Not in a cat's chance in hell.
As for justification at Google or Facebook not paying for content. They can, they created the environment,,, the 'playground' where people can play.
Then they created revenue by selling adverts. Before talking about fairness and equality... We should talk about revenue. Where is the revenue for Steemit coming from? It's not adverts.
Creating revenue through selling advertisements is reasonably on the horizon for the STEEM platform, and the various UIs that interface with it. It has been brought up before though that we need a fully functioning platform and a healthy (large and engaged) user base in order for the idea of advertisements to appeal to any of the large advertising stakeholders. I believe that is where we are heading.
They've certainly left the door open to this but I think there's a bit of conflict in that. They say they're not interested but might do it.
From the Steem whitepaper pg 43, "Replacing Advertising with Blockchain-Based Content Rewards":
And this is from an article where @ned is quoted (though it may be from an out of date press release?) published on 31st Jan this year, only a few weeks ago:
However in the privacy policy they make clear they can do all sorts:
I know it's off topic for this article but I want to state that I strongly believe this should be resisted. If that's where we're heading I'll be sorely disappointed.
The whitepaper is a bit out of date. I'm not sure if that is still the platform's position.
You are against adds that would pay all SP holders? What other revenue model would be able to support billions of dollars worth of new capital flowing into the platform?
I'm against invasions of privacy, harvesting personally identifiable information and tracking. This puts me in the position of opposing internet advertising as it currently stands because the ad networks employ some of the most advanced and invasive tracking methodologies yet invented.
The lack of it is the only reason I gave Steemit a chance to begin with. While the uncompromisingness of my position is not all that common, most people are against tracking, but choose to ignore it in order to access services.
I don't see how it would be practically possible for Steemit.com to incorporate advertising without involving these ad network but if they found a way I wouldn't oppose that. However it's clear that they would go with tracking. That's what "content targeted to your interests" is a euphemism for.
Edit: I forgot to ask, then is ned's quote out of date too?
(Nesting)
I don't know.
Anything along those lines is in the distant future at this point, so I'd say it is up in the air.
I know the Steemit devs and community are very concerned about privacy, so I wouldn't expect anything invasive that wasn't voluntary.
I hope so. I'd love to see them abandon CDNs (they are tracking proxies) and the use of Google analytics and custom search, but that's another story for another day!
Many thanks @wingz for your comments. The interaction and discussion is the stuff of solution and that is the goal for all with a care for this wonderful idea! Respect to you.
I am not quite clear as to your comment about Facebook or Google - I have heard it said many times that steemit seeks not to follow the trend of these two giants who profit off their subscribers, yet that is exactly what the power holders of steemit are doing.
The revenue is derived as I understand it via the blockchain and distributed to the holders of the SP, hence the numbers and the value. The distribution is stacked at leverage ratios of enormous proportion. I get leverage and I get investment - even mining but the initial rewards seem to have caused an imbalance which by its very nature is self-defeating. Hence, steem value today!
I hope that these words clarify your remarks to me, and the one question. If not, I am at your disposal to discuss further. Namaste!
If initial investors are paid off with the investments of further investors then the scheme is a Ponzi scheme.
Facebook etc, gave everything away for free, gained a network effect and then monetised with ads.
Technically the steem 'token' is derived from the blockchain. It's printed from nothing but the value does not come from nothing. It comes from investors betting on the network effect of Steem.
...And hoping on some kind of revenue in the future..
So basically, Steemit needs to find revenue other than new investors otherwise it's a Ponzi.
Sorry...I'll also add
Also you're right about the initial distribution. Far too top heavy and biased to large stakeholders that issues of 'fairness' are rightfully amplified to the extreme.
I could not agree more ... the value of steem, as it stands can only be based upon a valuation of steemit and a 'discounted for time' potential. The performance of steemit is therefore behind the valuation of steem and the responsibility of that performance is currently held to the tune of 80% by less than 100 people and 90% by less than 400 people.
The negation of this is to call black white!!
Curation, downvoting, UI - it does not terribly matter. What does matter is recognition of this simple truth, admission and a redirection based upon fairness. Otherwise, it will be a sad tale of Greed thwarting a wonderful concept.
Much as I think that @timcliff is doing an admirable job, I don't believe that it will be sufficiently radical to repair the holes in the hull.
The slowness to action displays a thorough misunderstanding of the status quo. Steem, right now should be trading at 4 cents, based upon what you and I have agreed.
I by no means think we should agree on all aspects to the same degree, nor would I try to persuade you.
I mean, the issue with Steemit is that it, in hindsight could be seen as a flop or as an incredible evolution of value that was bootstrapped from nothing. If development stopped here it would be the former. If we can take a few steps to Dan's vision... a few months back... of Steemit as the tip of the iceberg... Then we have the latter.
It's a juggling act. Why re arrange the deckchairs? When you can build the boat?
Dan and Ned have the vision but the majority of the whales seem to be in that desperately long river in Africa.
&
How did you get that
&in your comment? A literal&in a comment will display an ampersand, as will a single unadorned one like&. To get an&you need to write&in a steemit.com comment box.Hi there @sneak, I think I swanned past this message with your question about an ampersand, not thinking that it could have been for me! Firstly, many apologies for my oversight! I should know better.
The ampersand - & - shift and a 7 is all it took!
The devs must have been working overtime if that is not supposed to be a possibility!!
There again, I could be a complete effing genius and know how to programme the programme but that is as likely as pig aerobatics.
I know I have learned a lot today. Maybe I have managed to pass a gem to you. Namaste!
Weird. It showed up as a
&before. Now it's just showing as a normal ampersand (&). Odd bug!"have studied the £$%& out of this thing"
Mystery - maybe the combination, % before it could be a formatting tool, or maybe it just knew I meant 'fuck'! I shall follow your exploits to see how your fathom it out!