RE: Steemit Roadmap 2018: Community Input Requested
My primary suggestions mostly have to do with blockchain protocols.
Change the voting algorithm from full linear to anything but full linear. This has been an abject failure in practice and ought to be rolled back. Then we can discuss a better alternative that is neither n2 nor n.
Restore the 40-vote target.
Remove the STEEM Power delegation function. It not only reduces user demand for STEEM on the open markets, but it has also created another avenue for widespread mismanagement and abuse/exploitation of the collective and limited reward pool.
Reintroduce stronger bandwidth limitations. The amount of spam on the network via posts, comments, and wallet transfers/memos from new accounts is very high and is greatly inflating the daily "transaction" numbers for the blockchain. This is "bloat" that can be easily managed. Those who wish to spam can spend money on STEEM, if they so choose.
Consider reintroducing the four-post reward limits. This has no impact on the number of posts that one may publish in a given day. It only affects the total number of rewards that one user can receive from the limited collective reward pool.
Other than those suggestions, I'd still like to see some basic features/functions implemented on the Steemit.com website. Here are some additional suggestions:
A separate "Resteem" tab on your individual profile page that sorts your posts from those that you have shared. This has been a feature request for over a year.
Restoring the pop-out window for viewing of posts that could be neatly closed without having to push the 'back' button, which often brings you back to the wrong place on the page that you were previously on.
Serious consideration of revenue models that can be partially shared with investors in Steem and users of Steemit.com and affiliated apps/websites that Steemit, Inc. owns.
Additional "gamification" of the platform, particularly related to holding STEEM Power - if the other protocol changes are made.
What about groups like steemstem that partially (or even fully) depend on delegation?
Why are they so dependent on delegation? And if I recall correctly, SteemStem was operating fairly successfully long before delegation began.
so that votes of the main account are more powerful. This helps us gain curation rewards that can be used for projects.
and I would say overall its doing better than it ever has before
Excellent suggestions.
There seems to be widespread consensus here, quite perplexed as to why this hasn't already been implemented.
This brings to mind the truth that "nature builds in curves, not straight lines." In my opinion, it also relates to my suggestion to change the 25/75 curation rewards, which is an 'unnatural' rigid number that does not work well.
A radical suggestion for a radical and widespread problem. Not sure if it's the answer, but it is evident that the current state of affairs is quite imbalanced.
This was listed in the whitepaper for 2017 yet I have seen nothing implemented along these lines thus far (perhaps @steemitboard, but that doesn't really count if you ask me as it is not embedded into the actual site.) The effects of gamification can't be overstated, as it makes the whole experience much more vivid for the average user.
In regards to delegation. I was thinking about this the other day. Delegation could exist via a model similar to crowdfunding, and evidently, the same way that earlier investors here get reward for.. becoming early investors.
As an example, a new user joins. No one knows if they bring quality (if an identity already has a successful online identity then it's a no-brainer). They introduce themselves and outline their road map. They state: "I bring this, will be this active, and I intend to stay". If it's a blogger then a proof post might aid their cause. If it's a project, well then it's based on much more that just words.
So if a backer decides "I believe in you.. I'll delegate x amount of my SP to your cause". From there an agreement on return can be outlined. Maybe as a 'smart contract' but not mandatory. It's not like people can just cash out anyway. So as an early investor, you have a larger stake in their potential earnings. Along the way new investors have less and less. Or depending on the amount of delegation.
New members, can then utilize that delegated SP to grow their blog/project. Not to pay themselves. Early followers could also receive a small fraction of the reward. Not automatic. Engagement would always be necessary. The delegated SP would go towards rewarding comments that are engaging. (Essentially by a system of attraction. Rather then the way that exist now. Which is, work your ass off for a year or pay the damn fee to get noticed).
This would drive thoughtful comments. As any one that sees that a thoughtful comment received say $5.00 reward, as opposed to ZERO for parasite comments that clearly don't even read the content. It would create buzz around quality bloggers. Hence = rewards for engagement = rewards for those that delegate SP. It would also never allow a blogger, who reaches heights to simply post.. and not engage their followers. Something evident in the current system.
It time, quality bloggers/projects could even exist as tradeable asset. Where say one investor has backed X amount which is doing fantastic. They have long received their return and are in surplus. Someone new comes along, invests in first STEEM. Wants to back something, as he/she has money but not so much the time or maybe talent to post and grow their investment. So they can now buy the stake that someone else has in an active member. Placing them in 'the game' from the get go as they work to find their own worthy candidates to invest in.
So essentially whales, who are cashed up grow a portfolio of valuable steemians. Grow their wallet but at the same time the platform and the community. In turn, the price of STEEM. So it pays to support quality. It also hurts to support members who don't live up to their claims. So @freedom throwing money at shitpost accounts for instance. Would and should suffer.
From the outside looking in, it also improves the platform image and would truly have that quality feel. This would drive external buzz and I believe would sell itself as the true alternative to the standard players in social media. That old line "build it and they will jizz" (or something like that) would reign supreme. Because one thing is undeniable. Steemit has a very bad reputation outside of the minds of loyalists. You can't pretend it's not the reason why it hasn't grown and become more mainstream.
This is my idea of a platform that attracts and retains quality without corruption.
Maybe not 4 but definitely a limit. Right now it is easy for relatively new accounts to post 200+ posts a day with only a url for content. Either that or a bandwidth penalty for short content.
Please!
There is bandwidth limit.
But short content has value, so who are you to limit it? What if people tweet over Steem?
The content isn't limited. The rewards are. And the rewards don't stop after the posting threshold is reached - the maximum allocated to each post is just reduced after that threshold.
If the maximum allocation threshold for parent posts is five posts, but you're posting 10 times per day, then instead of receiving the full $100 allocated to each of the ten posts ($1000), you may only receive $70 or $80 per post ($700 - $800) and the rest goes back into the daily pool.
There are various trade-offs between quality and quantity by doing this, but the point to remember is that it is a limited daily reward pool. On a future interface, it may be possible for a few celebrities "tweeting" 10 times per day to capture a massive percentage of that pool compared to the other millions of users. I think it would be good to have some sort of protocols in place to mitigate that type of reward allocation.
Some people will argue that it can easily be circumvented by creating sock puppets, but managing multiple accounts on a daily basis at least requires extra steps and would be enough to deter a good number of users. It might even be preferable to simply take the relatively small loss in rewards rather than manage multiple accounts. And those who decide to manage the multiple accounts will likely be discovered eventually, as they'll probably do their best to coordinate votes and interactions and have similar/identical content and behavior.
Overall, I think the goal continues to be token/rewards "distribution" as widely as possible. At least that's the argument that I keep hearing. This could certainly help, even with today's tiny user base.
Yeah it used to be like that last year and when it was, people like me were getting $500-1000 per post. They changed the rules because the rewards were concentrated on fewer posts, but it seem now people want to go back to the old rules. What difference does it make?
Under the old rules I could post long detailed posts and under the new rules I must post frequent but shorter posts. The truth is people don't really read the longer posts so it likely will just encourage the use of bots.
How the rewards don't stop after the posting threshold i s reached?
Who have time for 200+ posts per day?
I envy the persons who manage 4 a day as for me the max was 2 in a day!
Spammers are inventive.
Maybe an hour to queue up several hundred posts. Especially if the post title can be taken from the file name.
200 posts in a day is physically impossible. The most I could do in a day was 16. But it also impossible to manually vote 90 votes in a day for the same reasons. So people don't vote and use bots.
https://steemit.com/@cryptomonitor
This guy is quite prolific!
247 top level posts yesterday, currently worth around $20($15 to him).
And people complained about me for posting 16 posts in one day (which is humanly achievable). 247 posts, only possible if there is either a team of humans, or if a human saved their posts in doc files to post on Steemit, but even then you would notice the frequency will taper off after a few days.
If it is a sustained frequency of hundreds of posts per day without any rest periods then you have to suspect a bot. That said it is $20 a day? It's not like he is getting rich.
Yeah that has to be scripted, i'd lose my mind very quickly if it was a manual task!
$15 isn't bad in some parts of the world.
I hear bandwidth could be the main issue - 4/5 images each post from what i see = 1000+ a day.
That is crazy!
I manage 38 blogs and 1048 posts and this in almost 5 months and this spammers are adding hundreds in one hour!!!
The worst thing is they dont add value to the platform...
200 posts a day is not humanly possible but anyone can post more than 4 a day. It doesn't actually matter how long or how short the posts or how many posts a day. What matters is growing the reward pool and increasing the size of the user base.
See my ideas for referral marketing programs for SMTs, and also like with anything people who have more time than money can post more than people who have more money than time. Increase the wealth of the network with SMTs to avoid the scarcity mind set.
200 posts a day 'is' (collectively) humanly possible... with a sufficiently big team of content creators or shadow-writers (discounting plagiarism). Just saying. :c)
maybe at least limit for resteeming? Right now there are many "I will resteem your post to 9876 followers for $9.99" bots
Markets are a good thing, they increase the value of the network. Less limits, grow the user base and connections between users. Limiting what people can do will not attract more people.
I'm reading your brilliance all down this page. Following.
Too many of those scams going around right now. A limit might just have them creating more accounts... That leads to more follow/unfollow bots working to gain followers for those accounts.
Not sure what a solution would be.
Make it known they advertise a false service!
https://steemit.com/bisteemit/@abh12345/resteem-com-is-this-re-steeming-service-worth-it-bisteemit-investigates
Old post.
I said the same thing.
I would add:
I think this has a lot more legal barriers to consider. And it also makes the purchasing of STEEM possible off of existing exchanges, which could complicate price discovery, especially when the holder of that STEEM in question gained it at the outset of the blockchain's creation - when there was no price at all.
In other words, it would be messy all around. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen because of the legal aspects. I could be wrong though.
Definitely.
I would have already bought steem to power up if there was a way to buy it on the site.
As it is, I instead searched for over an hour if there was any site that sold steem directly. The one that said it did had poor reviews, and listed $0 in steem for $50 USD. Then I spent another hour trying to decide what crypto currency to buy to exchange for it, because of the horrible transfer fees on bitcoin recently, and ended up going to bed. Then the next day I saw a bot censor someone, and decided to think more on it first.
Agreed. A definite negative for the cryptos at present. Especially Bitcoin - too slow and too expensive fees. Etherium is also problematic used - Chrome extension (Metamask) UI is terrible.
Seriously, very good suggestions.
However, I'm not sure how projects like @utopian-io and other open-source projects would function without delegation being there... though delegation removal would fix some problems, I personally think it would create many others and isn't the right solution.
They would function just like other projects that have functioned on Steem/Steemit without delegation for the past year and a half. They can provide updates with posts, receive donations from those who want to support them, have other accounts trail their votes, buy STEEM to power up...there are many options.
I know that delegation can be good, but it unfortunately creates far too much "bad" in an environment that does not include enough people willing to counter the "bad." So if the community as a whole proves to be inadequate in mitigating the "bad," then revert to prior protocols that didn't allow the avenue for abuse/exploitation/whatever you want to call it, then find a new/better solution...if there truly is a problem that needs to be resolved in the first place.
For every bit of good that delegation may do when given to good curators, we get two or more situations like this - and the latter seems to be increasing.
https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/whales-witnesses-we-have-to-talk
I see, it makes sense that a delegation market would pressure the price of STEEM downwards :(
Pretty sad because delegation really helped lots of users earn a 'voice' and especially helped projects function much better, but if we have to reorganize for the better of STEEM in the future (long-term), so be it.
If the delegators would research into the project they are delegating to then this would be a start.
Upvotes/Downvotes on a delegations list each week? Auto cancelled if community sides that way?
Why not expand the reward pool?
This is a response to what? And by "expanding the reward pool," do you mean "inflate the currency at a higher rate?"
great suggestions.
Absolute good comments. I loved the old system of steemit.
Very valuable advice, it shows your commitment to this platform. I am a big fan of stronger bandwidth limitations to cut down on spam.
Everything that was said by @ats-david !!!