Currently, upvotes on Steem reward the author 75% & curators share the remaining 25%.
This poll is asking if the community believes that curation & author rewards should be split 50/50.
Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.
Hi I apologize for being late to comment on this post regarding a change to the author/curator reward percentage.
I would like to propose a solution to this issue, at least a theoretic one, using partially existing infrastructure and rules, but also taking advantage of an existing capability in Steemit code, which would allow people to choose to change this split themselves.
After I read this post, I studied some of the existing graphic interfaces and I found that some of the existing sharing features on Steem-plus and some other graphic user interfaces on other platforms allow people to change the sharing of rewards on their specific posts to 50/50 percentage of the authors rewards with a single named beneficiary. Since the number of beneficiaries and the way the term beneficiaries is defined is written into the code underlying the graphic user interface, it is in theory possible to redefine beneficiary in other terms, such as beneficiary equals user who comments on my post or beneficiary equals user who upvotes my post. After that the code would define the math formula or algorithm which determines the amount paid to this newly defined “beneficiary”. Most developers would use the existing code found in the Git Hub library for this algorithm and not rewrite that portion of the code. I would suggest incentivizing a developer with JavaScript JS experience to write a code modifying one of these interfaces. In fact, it would be interesting to find out if a developer has already worked on some code to achieve this goal, i.e. a way to change the author/curator split and the code is stored on someone’s Github site. The final pice of such a code would connect to Steemconnect similarly as we do now when defining interactions between our Posting authority and the Steem Blockchain and especiallywhen defining interactions between our wallet and the Steem Blockchain, but it should be doable on a shorter timeframe then the development of a whole new platform, plus the use of code which has already been used in a live environment and found to be stable will accelerate this process.
I think that in theory this could be done, and it would not require special permissions from Steemit, inc, as it requires only user granted permissions to change the split for an individual user. I hope I have summarized the problem correctly and explained my proposal clearly. If not please contact me. @shortsegments
Take care
Voted for
I think @valued-customer and @krnel explained already very well, why they are against an increased curation reward. I agree with them.
I read the argument that other methods (vote selling, self-voting) would be much more profitable for (money) investors (don't forget that authors are also investors, time investors) than curating, thus curating should be made more attractive. I just ask what a few times more profitable means if at the same time the STEEM value is more and more decreasing? I would love to earn less STEEM than now if only the STEEM value would increase again. And it will only increase if we manage to attract more users (who in the best case are contributing interesting content). Only then potential bigger investors (companies) could be sure to reach a big audience (for example when advetising their products). It's hard enough for new users anyway: to create an account, have enough RC for upvoting and answering comments, earning any small amount with their posts. It would get even worse! And if then for example I would be one of the few upvoters of such a small new account I would get a big part of the author reward myself (as curation) instead to give it to the author ...
I really like to curate already NOW with only 25 % curation reward if I find good stuff (I don't care when I vote and who else did vote). I curate because I like what I see. I think the voting behavior of people who are curating this way wouldn't change much with higher curation reward. I guess only people who curate just for earning money, most of the time in an automated way (without reading what they curate) would be affected by this change.
Voted for
Giving people kickbacks for voting has always been a terrible idea. On the flipside, forcing people into the blogging ecosystem in order to retain their stake rewards has also always been a terrible idea, and that's becoming ever-more-obvious as blogging loses Steem market share to other activities. Both of those things should be removed.
Voted for
While I do think that curation rewards should be increased somewhat, I still hold the conviction that an author holds the right to reap the greatest reward from a post as it is their content they created and own. 75/25 is, however, maybe a bit much for the author. I might suggest 60/40 or 55/45. Or like @demotruk just asked about, maybe introduce a slider to allow authors to decide how large the curation reward should be. Because I firmly believe in the right to choose, I support this option the most!
Voted for
No, we should not introduce a Voting Slider or change the curation percentage, because this is not the fundamental problem with Steemit. We need to acknowledge that the Proof of Brain mechanism of Steemit doesn't fit to the overall Dapp ecosystem of the Steem Blockchain. Instead of thinking how we can improve the Author / Curation system we should think about how we can change the rules of the reward pool distribution for the whole Steem Ecosystem. My proposal would be to get rid of Steemit exclusive right to mine Steem Tokens. Steemit should become its own SMT project so that the Reward Pool is free of this entanglement. Than we can develop the Reward Pool towards an DAPP Ecosystem which should put Steempower Holders, RC Holders and Voting rights for Witnesses in the center of the Ecosystem. Why should we mine Steem by only posting and Blogging on Steemit when the whole Ecosystem is changing towards Dapp Economy??? Please, guys lets take this serious there is no need for changing just the Curation Author reward system we need complete change of the Reward Pool Structure!
Voted for
My instinct is against this. Gaining 100% on my curation rewards would be wiped out by what I lost of post rewards and that would be the same for most non-orcas/whales. I know some of those who invested big initially would like a better return, but I think Steem has much to gain if it can get many more small accounts. Maybe it needs some adjustment, but this seems too big.
Of course vote buying is a big problem as it skews the rewards with little relation to quality. Perhaps there could be some change to reduce the impact of votes above a certain level, but I expect the vote sellers would find ways around that, e.g. using lots of accounts.
Steem will never be perfect, but I hope it can keep going anyway.
to help an old bloke, how can you curate a post that wasn't written because it wasn't worth the effort?
Voted yes. People seem to be focusing on the 50/50 being unfair to authors. On a micro level perhaps that is a correct statement. On a macro level I think there will be more users incentivized to curate, therefore authors will receive more rewards in the aggregate. You could also allow people to chose the ratio themselves, and place that ratio front and center on the newsfeed, so people can decide if they want to click on the content at all based upon the ratio. I could see generous folks like @theycallmedan or @kus-knee giving 75% to curators just to help spread more wealth around. If people see such a ratio, they might end up dog-piling the votes and the post ends up earning them more rewards than the standard ratio. Why not take the position of, it's your content, you choose the split. We'll make it obvious to everyone which way you are choosing, so the community can see where your priorities lie, and whether we want to follow you or upvote your content at all.
It's interesting that freedom to choose any desired curation % for every author is never considered to be an option on Steemit.
Voted for
I am interested in trying it to see the impact.
In NO WAY to I think it will have significant changes in the Steem Price or the growth of the platform.
If it will appease a few of our stakeholders who are jealous of each other that is great.
The problem with Steem has little to do with how the math works right now and everything to do with not having an organized plan and any marketing. Mostly I just see this as a way for our stakeholder to pick their preferred method of gaming the system.
If you want Steem to grow we have to look outside of Steem not inside.
Voted for
Raising the reward without altering the reward algo is useless.
Voted for
The creator of the content deserves the bulk of the rewards for that content. Plus it will hurt user retention, enough damage was done with RC in that regard already.
Voted for
Yes, and the answer is associated with basic view point and that is, Both creator and consumer chain goes hand in hand so 50/50 is good option for sure. Stay blessed.
Voted for
50/50 split is definitely better than the existing 25/75. 25% is not sufficient incentive when compared to vote selling or delegating to a bot. I am not even sure if 50/50 is sufficient. A few other changes are also required to make it work (e.g. separate downvote pool, option to receive curation rewards as 50% SBD, and delegation contracts).
It might even be necessary to increase the curation rewards to as high as 75% for sufficient curation to occur. Higher curation rewards also facilitates delegation to curators rather than bots.
I have written several posts regarding the current problems with the reward system. Increasing curation rewards still looks like the best option and it appears to be quite strongly supported.
Voted for
There was a big discussion 6 months ago about economic changes post-discussion but we didnt reach consensus.
Voted for
Voting shouldn't be called curation. It's a misleading term. Curation means that experts help other people discover good content, preferably by creating a coherent collection for a certain theme or genre.
Resteeming is a form of curation, but it isn't rewarded. Voting is expressing your own preference, and extending the arts metaphor, it's comparable to buying a ticket for an exhibition or concert. Upvoting posts you like (including your own) should be enough of a reward.
A high reward for voting means that whales who don't post often stay rich, while poor bloggers stay poor, no matter how active they are. It also encourages buying and selling votes, because the voting bots get part of the money back as rewards.
Participation in the network is rewarded by rewarding authors and commenters. It would be better if voting would cost money, like supporting content in the real world does.
Voted for
I don't happen to think it really matters how much the percentage changes, the ratio probably won't ever be enough for the desired effect.
The problem is, there's never really going to be enough incentive based on ROI alone to start curating, especially manual curation, which will end up doing the most good, if that's what we're actually going for here. Autovoting and spreading out upvotes across hundreds of accounts by the larger SP accounts that actually upvote isn't going to change, other than the number of smaller votes that each can make might increase.
For me, one of two things is most likely to happen.
As the payout changes to 50/50, Bidbots will make whatever adjustments they need to do accordingly, they will then get the higher SP through curation, and continue to get delegations from larger accounts because they can up their rental fees. Meantime, the users will end up paying more to bidbots to make up for what they're losing in the payout, or they will just get less, period. I don't see hundreds or thousands of curators with large SP suddenly appearing to make up the difference that authors will be giving up, mainly because there aren't that many large SP accounts to begin with, especially compared to the numbers of active lower SP.
Or the system starts to fall apart quicker as fewer people post because the incentive for them to do so is gone. Fewer posts, fewer opportunities to curate, fewer opportunities to maximize profits as more curators fight for fewer rewards.
Personally, I'd like to see this tested somehow. If it can't happen on a testnet because the number of transactions, sample size, duration—what have you—wouldn't be large enough to give an adequate reading as to what would happen if there was a change, then I'd like to see those who would need to be involved with this just go ahead and do it now, without changing anything, to see what would happen. End delegations to bidbots, self-upvoting, circle upvoting, whatever activities we're talking about here, then start curating, preferably manually. Do it for say three months, less if it's possible to extrapolate what's happening. That way, at least someone's theory could be proven, rather than changes being made based on what we individually opine.
Voted for
Absolutely. Our urgent need is to get customers for all this content otherwise it becomes a circle jerk between content creators. What's the point in producing content if there isn't anyone to read it?
Congratulations @theycallmedan! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:
I support the restoration of 50/50 rewards on a post (50% to the author, 50% to the curators). The change to 75% author rewards was extremely damaging, IMO, and led to excessive self-voting and finally to the bidbots we have today.
I made a post on this issue a long time ago that covers my reasoning in depth: https://steemit.com/steem/@blocktrades/voting-abuse-and-ineffective-curation-a-proposal-for-blockchain-level-change
I haven't voted in the poll, as the security of my active key is extremely important, but I would vote in favor of returning to 50/50 split, otherwise.
As a side note, the display of stake-weighted voting seems broken on dpoll right now.
voted for no. We should focus on development instead of tweeking basic working mechanism.
Voted for
I think it's important to first release SMTs and Communities to see how those developments impact things. Those are major improvements that represent paradigm changing additions to the Steem ecosystem and it is important to observe how they change this complex system.
Those features might not just solve the problem, may fundamentally shift the entire dynamics of the system such that the nature of the problem totally transforms, as does the optimal solution. Even if people still feel that curation is not optimized at that time, there is a very good chance that the solution they envision will be totally different once SMTs are out in the wild (or even just advanced Steem-Engine tokens). There is a non-negligible possibility that once SMTs are mature, people will want to remove curation rewards from the base layer entirely and raise that functionality to higher layers where they can be better customized and more rapidly adjusted.
Voted for
Increasing curation rewards will further incentive bots vote selling and auto votes, and will not make a difference to self voting
Voted for
Think from perspective of 80% population who is not rich or does not have millions in their SP.
They come, write great articles. First,It is so hard to get rewards on steemit for good work and then even if some of our posts makes good rewards, 50% goes in curation, that would be sad
Voted for
Maybe it is worth a try because the actual system isn't very good. People need more incentives to make real curating.
Thanks for contributing to the dPoll content.
You have been upvoted from our community curation account (@dpoll.curation) in courtesy of This Guy... @bluerobo.
Come, join our community at dPoll discord server.
If you want to support dPoll curation, you can also delegate some steem power. Quick steem connect links to delegate:
50SP | 100SP | 250SP | 500SP
Voted for
I am not sure about this one since I have changed my opinion on this in the past and still don't have conviction. My vote goes for "No" because the current reward system is motivating for creators. A 50% cut for manual curators would still be insignificant. My SP is around 550 at the moment and I only curate manually. The rewards from this are negligible. I curate because I like it, not for the rewards. Cutting creator rewards on the other hand might put a dent in my posting. This doesn't look like a good value proposition to me at the moment.
Voted for
I am yet to be convinced that 50/50 will boost manual curation over bots and auto votes, but it is worth a try.
Voted for
My vote is yes to 50/50 as a good first step, but just to clarify on my position, check out the end of this comment at the "extra" as I just want to focus on the 50/50 item atm.
Concern: 50/50 is too heavy. 40/60 might be better. Curators are taking too much of a cut while doing much less than authors. Better to focus on more apps and biz. There will be a different maximization game with the change.
Firstly, think of a hypothetical Steem economy with 100% author rewards and 0% curation rewards, 100/0. Voters will most likely just upvote themselves all the time. Broadly speaking, 100/0 is in effect, the economic equivalent of 0% author rewards and 100% curation rewards, 0/100, as voters just end up getting all the rewards voting anywhere. Nothing left for authors either way for any decent content. Looking at this symmetry, it stands to reason that 25/75 today is in effect like 75/25, and 40/60 is like 60/40. So 50/50 is in effect, just the same at 50/50. In fact I'd expect anything besides a close approximation of the 50/50 effect would end up collapsing into somewhere near the 0/100 or 100/0 region, after a long period of time. Again, just broadly speaking though. Not really debating 60/40 or 40/60 is better than 50/50, as long as it achieves the 50/50 effect in the end for every vote given out to something decent.
Secondly, authors effectively get their rewards from curators, and authors are also curators themselves. It's a social network blockchain. Personally, I don't really get the dichotomy here even though there are obviously users that only create or curate. Saying no to improved curation reward is almost like telling our sponsors they shouldn't get the best and most sensible returns possible from supporting our work.
Thirdly, imagine a channel where the best curators hang out while onboarding / promoting great content creators. Let's say Pewdiepie or whoever else you're already digging on Steem or anywhere else. With the right incentives, we'd be happily voting on content that we're already consuming everyday and even take the time to promote upcoming great content creators. Sure, the many different apps that developers build are important, but I can't think of a better business for everyone other than going the route of trying to improve Steem's economy via its rewards or POB protocol, something which no user interface or application can ever do. More biz and apps are good but they're not necessarily Steem's topmost differentiating factor in crypto. There are plenty of high performance blockchains for biz and stuff. It's better to get Steem's economy around the right ballpark with the community we have, build it, and then the best of apps and biz will thrive along the way.
Extra:
I hope the other 2 items would get considered sometime in the near future to seal all the conceivable leaks in the boat the best we can. It also adheres to a better blockchain philosophy in my opinion, if considering notions of quality & quantity & incentives. Everything we encourage shoving into the chain is a cost someone has to bear in the future, etc. Sure we can and should have loads of activities coming from a social blockchain perspective, but incentives are another matter and not necessarily and straightforwardly all kinds of activities == incentives. We shouldn't get mixed up between these arguments. Minimize costs and maximize benefits. Cliche, but it's paramount to any blockchain design, moreso than anything that revolves around traditional databases if we're considering a very very long-term game.
Maximizing rewards through whatever means, even the most lazy via curation trail is perfectly fine. There just needs to be checks and balances in the economy (as proposed in the link above) so it can at least benefit Steem as a whole over time. Even the most hardworking people will be lazy at some point, or lazy in certain dimensions. Or whatever, lazy is not really the point. We just need to design a environment or economy where lazy produces something good, like a working content discovery and rewards platform. Imagine if lazy autovoters are voting on crap stuff. Some "bribe" and deterrence from the change to 50/50, superlinear rewards, and downvote pool will likely change behavior or the "path of least resistance" to point to the good stuff that actually helps the platform.
Of course, a working economy means a positive feedback loop on the network, and that would necessitate improvement in part of reward beneficiaries as time goes on. It's the other way around at the moment, imo.
I didn't vote the poll, as I don't have my keys near me atm, but I vote for no with the info I have at this moment.
I wonder how it works when authors use a dapp to publish. Let's take my latest article as an example, and I hope you can explain to me what it will do to my percentage of the reward:
This article was published through the @oracle-d portal, which makes them beneficiaries, which is totally fine by me. I publish via them, as I write the articles for their tasks, and they support me. I have no issue with them taking a bigger part of my earnings in this case. Without their support, my earnings on these articles would be a lot lower than they are now.
In this case, 48.75% is left for me (the author) as a reward. And the curators take 24.14%, while the beneficiaries (oracle-d) takes 26.25% ...
Whenever the curation rewards (as a standard) for the author will be lowered to 50%, what does this mean for the the percentages mentioned above? Personally, I would not feel comfortable putting all the effort in writing these articles, and earning even less than 50%.
I hope you can explain this to me, as my answer is based on the info I have at the moment, and to be honest, I have no clue what this will do to rewards for articles where there are already beneficiaries involved as well.
Thanks in advance :)
Voted for
I earn more than most users through posting, but even for me a 50-50 split wouldn't reduce my earnings by that much.
The big plus is that this should encourage more curation and looking around for good content and diverse voting among most users.
It would need some careful marketing about authors being dependent on their curators, because I do accept the comments that say '50-50' doesn't feel right, if flippantly talked about it comes across as 'chucking half your rewards away', but it's not that simple of course!
I'm not sure 50-50 would break up the early adopter shit-posting circle jerks though?
I'm in the @kevinwong club for how to change steem - this is one pillar, a few other tweaks need to be changed!
I'm also very much in agreement with those people saying we need to try something different - so this is defo worth trying.
I'm also thinking 60-40 might be better!
Voted for
I like things the way they are.
Yes, there are people who still post and curate others honestly without bots. They deserve their 75% of the rewards. If they upvote themselves, that is their right. They earned it. It's their money! They cannot hide what they are doing. It's right there for everyone to see if their actions look suspicious or not.
Why would I want to pay half of my earnings to a group of people I do not get to select every time they choose my post? Many of them are just trying to cash in a fraction from a big fish who gets paid for my work. I would rather them leave me alone, and I can make a more honest income for work that is actually good and respected by like-minded people who appreciate each other. Yes, it is possible to be even more successful through hard work and quality talents. We do not have to resort to letting the biggest players control the majority of all rewards.
Voted for
50/50 is too extreme!
Maybe 60/40. With 50/50, I'm sure to have many curation bots as well as quit blogging on Steem. I will become a full time curator who will only look out for content with potentials of huge curation rewards and not really about its quality.
I think the main idea should be promoting reading and engagement. 50/50 will not solve this.
Also, I see the reward poll shifting more towards the whales and high earners on Steem and these set of Steemians will be targets of curation bots.
Actually This is one of the true discussions for Steem Blockchain Future. But everyone in Steemit folk has some concerns about Steem economy. First of all i think that Steem Economy is the best economy among traditional and Blockchain economies. But it has some negative sides.
First time when i opened steemit account i thought bid bod system is what a shit system. But later i noticed that it consist a big part of steem economy because of people have encourged by this system for produce and share something on this platform. But you right that at the same time this system enables to low quality content.
Well why people prefer to use bidbods? Because when someone try to produce something, can not instantly get support by community member or curators. Because you have to consist a network via many communication tools such as discord, steem.chat or others. But the most people generally just write something or produce something with their knowledge because of this is their passion and they can not access with another people or curators on steemit.So they feel it not important for community or platform. There is main problem about that i think we have not enough curators. So every curator can not track and find out each post every time.
Second think i disagree downvote system. Because if you scare to people for create right order, then many people escape out and don't come new people for that. You can not do something with fear. Just try with beatiful things.
Finally I think the best important thing is the economy growth has to spreading into public. As you know traditional economies have main problem like that. If steem economy will not spread towards general public, then we will face a lot of economic or price problem.
But this discussion is vers possitive for future.
Thanks.
Voted for
Voting "no" with my second account in order to draw attention to something else: curation rewards are a red herring. We are wasting effort on a topic which is strategically secondary.
By contrast, one of the BIG, hugely important topics in the steem eco-system is that of personal accountability. If participants felt responsibility about the way they act on the platform, we'd be having a lot less problems and would be seeing a lot less abuse.
Yet personal responsibility is tightly linked to identity. For as long as people can act here anonymously and under the cloak of as many anonymous accounts as they want, we are going to see on display our lowest, most despicable instincts.
As an experiment to try and give incentive for manual curation vs bot usage, I'd say yes. Assuming your logic is correct. On the other hand, there will be those authors whose efforts might become even more undervalued. That's what we fear, I guess. As well as finding out that some new unhealthy practice takes hold on the pool. How do new authors get to their feet?
Voted for
If we were to raise the curation rewards to 50% it is hard to predict the outcome - it should diminish the incentives to write articles (hence the number of articles) and thus the overall activity of the blockchain. For investors and advertisers less activity means less value. On the positive, those who do keep writing will do so more because they have something to say than because of the money. At the margin though, I expect to see more people leaving the platform because the rewards will be even smaller than today. But I admit these are speculative thoughts, it's hard to predict how the community will react. My main problem though is that it doesn't feel right. The effort is not the same in writing an article and in upvoting it. How do you justify rewarding the same two activities which require such vastly different effort ?
Voted for
I do not think 50/50 would encourage manual curation or reduce usage of bid bots. Using 50/50 doesn't mean every voters (if any) will get 50% of their vote value back rather the curation bots that vote at optimal time will get a lot back from their investment.
To my knowledge all current bid-bots take 25% curation split into account in calculating ROI, they might as well take 50% into account by changing 2-3 lines of codes. Some share curation rewards with the delegators now, so they will have no problem sharing then.
Lastly and most important to me, I want bigger rewards for the creators, they put time and efforts into creating contents, so they should receive more, not a person with huge stake or a bot that votes indiscriminately.
Voted for
I voted for this option though I am really okay with the 60 - 40 rewards share.
Hi @theycallmedan. I hope so too it can be raised to encourage more curators on this platform. I should say around 60 - 40 is a better choice. 40% goes to curators :)
Voted for
The better question is why not try something different. The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. Let’s try something different as we may have much to lose!
I personally feel it is yes for curators but no for content providers.
At this point of time there are still a lot of junk posts out there that is manipulative with self upvotes.
I agree with @themarkymark that this shouldn't be the only solution.
If truly that there is a 50-50 rewards then it has to be more creteria to it to encourage content creators to keep creating.
I also like the slider feature suggestion where creators are allowed to choose to set his / her post like a bounty for exposure (providing that the post offers 50% curation rewards) purposes so that curators are enticed to come and read the post or just support it.
Voted for
I believe that when we start bringing in the masses with a large portion of it is influenced by businesses they need to be able to sustain and know that STEEM blockchain is not a "charitable" organization however its a platform where they can leverage by earning by their own investments staked into the blockchain and also be able to reward their user base.
Even conventional reward programs gives less then 5% of reward points based on the amount spent by their users and users will still try to find the best way to earn more points.
getting the curation to 50/50 is just the first step however with SMT about to be launched (taboo), that variable should be able to be determined by the founder of that token.
Voted for
If getting twice the reward for voting good content gets people to vote, then yes..
Otherwise people are just shitposting posts to farm votes with the 75% rewards.
Voted for
This is a no brainer. There is no "loss" to the content creator when 50/50 curation rewards incentives more curation and upvoting by Steem stakeholders.
Voted and I like it. Thank you so much. I voted yes, though l like most of my time in power up my earnings. I voted yes for the necessity of other Steemians who need money on time.
Posted using Partiko Android
Voted for
Dear @theycallmedan, I love the 50/50 curation basis leaving the Steemians to decide their 50% for their own option. Anyway, for me l always wanted to power up,I'm just giving way for the necessity of others, like they need money for example for emergency needs. Thank you for this. Salute you!
Voted for
Current system is fine. Making a change in it will reduce author reward.
Voted for
I think it would be worth a try anyway as the current curation is not great. I think more people will take it more seriously and it may stop users selling their votes. I would be happy to see this implemented as it gives more users the chance to grow a little quicker.
It seems to me a lot of bot owners are “eyeing” this 😂😂😂
Posted using Partiko iOS
50 50 is not bad considering the reason behind is. I say yes to that suggestion.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Voted for
How about 60:40 50:50 seems extreme. Yeah, I understand the current reward ratio has loopholes but I'm sure the 50:50 ratio can be exploited as well. I don't think altering the reward ratio will have a significant effect on the voting habits of most steemians. Maybe some sort of debate regarding this can should be done so people can have a more balanced view and then decide.
Voted for
I don’t think this alone is the solution or if 50% is the right number but what we have now doesn’t work and the gap between curating, delegating to a bot, and self voting is huge.
I believe it needs to come with changes to flags as well to encourage quality negative curation.
Voted for
I think it'll have unintended consequences resulting in the stratification of the steem economy. Could be wrong though.
Absolutely No!!! Because when curators invested in content, always the Author will receive 1/3 of the total amounts of invested curators
Voted for
YES. I vote yes but I give the chance of it ever happening at only 1%.
Interesting question. I don't think it'll solve the problem of helping good content rise though. 50/50 will be good for whales but for the rest of steemit, i'm not so sure.
Voted for
We need more readers and increasing curation hopefully brings more users who enjoy reading posts and hopefully create more engagement which benefits us all.
Voted for
Maybe add a slider for between 25% and 75% for a trial period until finalizing on the exact amount.
I have been against this for the longest time, but @theycallmedan has sort of convinced me that 50/50 would be something we could benefit from... I still remain skeptical to say the least.
However, I understand the idea behind the suggestion, but it comes from the already wealthy people, which is a big, fat red flag to me. Nothing against theycallmedan though, I know he does great things for the little people and I know his intentions are good. But, there are a bunch of passive people around who does nothing but circle-jerk, sell votes and remain passive...
I don't want to make the rich even richer, especially not at the expense of content creators. This place already stinks of greed and selfishness, so I don't want to add anything more to it.
I wouldn't mind some sort of "trial period" though. 2 weeks of 50/50 to see how it would work. I've never seen any reversed changes since I joined in July 2016 though, so I doubt we would see a reverse, no matter the outcome.
STEEM has literally pushed people into passiveness from the beginning, especially after delegations arrived and vote selling became a thing...
Voted for
Voting no because authors still need to get something. I'm a lot more of a curator than an author, even running @hoist to help new and (subjectively)good authors. But making sure that new users see some rewards for posting is important to keeping them so 75/25 is a good split. Now that 15 min cooldown period for voting for a post I think we should remove.
Voted for
The wealthy curators or big fishes will make more money without doing anything on curation trails. Imagine making 25% more money with a tool like SteemAuto.
Then you collect the money once a month while you are at the beach. ;)
Steem Power is like an axe on the reward pool, the more you have it, the more you make money!
I vote no as we need people to continue making posts. No posts no steem Blockchain doing anything and nothing to vote on.
Posted using Partiko Android
Voted for
Would be an interesting experiment at the very least. So I would be open to a trial of some sort.
I'm not sure if it would make much different though. People might start curating others more, but would they actually engage in the content, will they even look at it, or will it still just be mostly on auto pilot? It might even make people automate voting even more.
It would make it fairer for those who do curate though, not everyone likes to post a lot.
Voted for
No, for several reasons. I believe bid bots would be capable of adjusting to the new dynamic. They would gain heavily from increased curation reward and be able to pay that forward to their delegators, making this change minimally effective in incentivizing better curation from higher SP individuals. Rather than improving authentic curating, I think a 50/50 split would instead incentivize more curation trails and schemes to maximize rewards. It would definitely slow the velocity with which Steem is distributing out to more accounts. Those who vote generously now would have to start actually tipping Steem instead of voting if they wanted to continue building minnows or their communities up at the same rate they currently are, which simply over complicates the system. Most importantly, I don’t think the current curation system is showing its true maturity and function yet due to Steem’s low userbase. If a post gets genuinely popular at present, it may get a few hundred organic upvotes. We have yet to see true virality and popularity on Steem. With broader distribution and more activity we’ll see curation truly shine as some folks will be the first to discover & promote content that goes on to millions of upvotes! That kind of curation reward won’t be bought or manufactured like in today’s small ecosystem.
edit I also see a future and application for businesses and brands that purchase stake to reward their fans & customers by upvoting positive posts, reviews, comments, etc. In this scenario those users care more about their voting strength, not their curation kickback. I don’t want my vote based “marketing spend” hobbled by 33%.
Voted for
I had earlier created this poll few days ago, but it did not gain a good engagement probably because I had no rewards for voters.
This is one of the reasons that curation should gain more than its current 25%. Beyond the rewards, curation goes a long way as as an appreciation for one's time, skills put into a post and beyond votes, the resteems and comments add a great flavour.
My argument is simple. With higher curation rewards, we'll have more investors and #steem will grow. Besides, Content creators will have to give attention to quality to attract good curators.
Thanks @Theycallmedan for visiting this again.
Till on my research on this.
Voted for
50/50 especially when curation rewards are using square root rather than linear rewards? Might as well just ship bundles of cash directly to whales and skip all the intermediary steps.
Voted for
No because the Author does the work on the content. The whole argument of value on Steemit is based about the value of content,so I don't understand why you'd want to give half of the content writers pay to the audience. think 25% is a fair take for the audience & ensures money circulates back into the ecosystem. Oh, & I don't even post anymore so this doesn't affect me. The only problem that anyone should be worried about here, is how lame Steemit has become. Audiences are bored and so I don't even tell people about this place anymore, it smells of old socks & dungeon-dwelling programmers
Voted for
I voted for yes. Let us try 50/50 curation, since it has not been tried before. Who knows it can solve some citation problems were are facing. Like vote buying.
Voting no here, as I have no way to log into the poll there without giving a third party my key.
Voted for
I vote yes. If we are in beta then let's be in beta and be bold enough to try things. Throw shit (not literally please) and see if it sticks.
Voted for
Use your own selection abilities for qualified labor. (hope this is a good idea=) What i try to mean?. Reward the authors. Do not put the responsibility to trend setters hands. Of course It is both abusable for authors and curators.
I think now is good model, but maybe steemit need a changes to rise steem to the moon!
Voted for
Of course, because people will be more happy to curate, investors will invest more in steem power and steem will be just better !
Voted for
Let's see what will happen... if the effect will not be positive, we can always go back, right?
This Is My Journey - My Content Is Not Financial Advice. Co-Founder @ThreeSpeak - Upvotes/Reblogs are not endorsements.
