Moving to hive

whatsup (75) 5 years ago (edited)

A very well stated argument. I wish we could test slightly higher curation rewards without going all the way to 50/50.

As you know I also think it might end up that Authors earn more due to less reward from the bidbots, which is where a lot of stake gets eaten up. Also I feel some of the gamers would move from posting to voting which at least reduces the noise.

I like the bidbots, but I would rather see more steem in more hands.

I'm torn.

$0.04

practicalthought (65) 5 years ago

I really don't see how the bidbots will take much of a hit on this. This would simply shift some of their revenue stream from front end to back end on the curation rewards.

I think the best way to test this is to make it a choice for the author. Keep it at the default setting and allow authors to decide if they want to use a slider to offer higher curation rewards.

Ultimately, I suspect being a stake based voting system this will be voted in as this benefits those with the largest holdings. And if Steemit remains the only real funnel for Steem there will be no to the moon. So in the larger scheme of moon or just plodding along around the top 50 or outside of it, this is a smart move to solidify that position. I just want it to be understood where some of the hits will be. I don't see this helping with retention at all, nor being a huge draw to bring in more passive income as they would have already came and delegated to the bidbots.

Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your openness to weighing it all out as I know you lean towards a shift of some sort in split. :)

whatsup (75) 5 years ago

Oh thanks for writing about it. I'm very interested in the conversation. I am honestly torn.

remlaps (74) 5 years ago

I think the bidbots are a form of arbitrage. Bottom line, I think there is no one size fits all "right percentage" for all authors. For an author with a small following, the curation percentage should probably be higher so that they can attract votes. On the other hand, for an established author, it should probably be lower. But, since authors can't set individualized thresholds, the bid-bots show up to redistribute Steem from authors to voters. As long as it's pigeon-holed into one size fits all, I think the bidbots will remain, no matter what the percentage.

I would love to know how Golos is making out with its adjustable thresholds. Maybe @svamiva knows? Last I heard, they had set min & max thresholds, but the percentage wasn't locked at the time of posting, so it was being abused. There was supposed to be a hardfork to correct it, but I'm not sure if it happened yet.

$0.00

whatsup (75) 5 years ago

Haha, flexible is interesting. Would it change how you voted if you could see for instance that I was giving 100% or 0%

I don't know, I haven't thought that one through yet.

harvhat (55) 5 years ago

Guaranteed way to eliminate bid-bots

Remove the STEEM value of upvotes completely and switch to a donation system (ala Patreon or YouTubes "superchat" or twitch.tv's "twitch bits" and such). As a reader the reward is (or should be) enjoying the (hopefully) great content. paying the reader any amount to upvote creates this problem.

Yea I know, it's not gonna happen, but figured I'd toss it out there anyway.

ddrfr33k (63) 5 years ago

Yeah, I'm in agreement with you. Quality content creation should be the driving force for growth on Steem, rather than upvoting. Don't get me wrong, I sell some of my voting power to SmartSteem, but I would not want all of my growth to come from there. That's just not a good idea in general...

newageinv (70) 5 years ago

This is a tough dilemma in these times of low prices. The focus should be making the pie larger instead of who gets a bigger piece of it. Easier said than done but is we are able to create value on top of a sustainable infrastructure, it will be a start.

Posted using Partiko iOS

practicalthought (65) 5 years ago

I don't think they can do much about increasing the size of the pie. Based on how stake lays claim to it, it is bigger than many in the bottom 2/3rds understand. I believe this proposal would simply skew a bit more to the top while decreasing the crumbs accessible now at the bottom.

$0.10

4 votes

bashadow (65) 5 years ago

I do not think bid bots will go away, it is a method that some use to advertise their blog, right or wrong, good post or bad post, people will still buy from them even at a 50/50 split. I think the reason for the 50/50 split is that the smaller accounts are voting more and more often for people that are in per-say their neck of the woods SP wise. Many have come to desire the interaction as much as the vote, the social bit as much as the crypto bit.

I am not sure about the 50/50 split, but since I have yet to decide to even look up or learn how to buy and convert crypto to fiat and fiat to crypto, I guess it does not effect me other than what I was getting will be less, but less of something is better than less of nothing I guess. It will of course mean slower growth for my account, so lower level votes for others, but it will grow, just a bit slower than it has been.

I would still love to see random payout start times for the curation rewards. They don't need to change the formula, just the start time, pick 2 days from posting to start splitting up the curation payouts one hour then pick day five hour 5 , and maybe those that call themselves curators will really start to curate, How many post get voted for on day 6 hour 16? Randomization of the curation start time payouts would then really benefit the "Professional" Bloggers, and the small social bloggers who also curate would benefit also. The only ones that would not benefit would be the so called Professional Curators, because they would have no clue as to when the curation payout point would start so programming their bot to vote at 13 minutes 45 seconds or what ever start time is currently optimum would go away, there would be no "Optimum" curation time to vote on a blog so the blog would then really be active and Live for the entire 7 days and not just 1 or 2 days.

practicalthought (65) 5 years ago

It will of course mean slower growth for my account, so lower level votes for others, but it will grow, just a bit slower than it has been.

This is what will definitely happen, as well as increase the speed many seem to leave. The question then becomes will this actually entice more investment. I have my doubts given the already high return offered through the bid bots.

$0.05

bashadow (65) 5 years ago

It won't, and it is, in my view all about the greed. IF they randomize the curation payouts then I will believe it is in the interest of attracting curators, with out the randomization of the curation payout start times it is nothing but greed. If it was about curation then more than a handful of people would vote on content that is five or six days old that they somehow find. (I find a lot of older post).

pennsif (79) 5 years ago

This post has been included in the latest edition of The Steem News in 10 posts - a compilation of the key news stories on the Steem blockchain.

tts (-8)(1) 5 years ago

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

$0.00