#hf21

Hardfork 21 - Steem Proposal System (SPS) + Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP)

There have been a lot of posts over the past year talking about various ideas and proposals for the next hardfork. We seem to be getting close to a point where the changes for the next HF are relatively finalized, so I wanted to share my views.

Overview

The first part of this post will provide a high level overview of the changes that are currently in the proposed HF, for anyone who is not familiar with them.

Steem Proposal System (SPS)

The SPS will work similarily to the current rewards pool, except instead of providing an unknown amount of rewards "after the fact" (once you create a post), it will allow users to get paid a predetermined amount for proposed work.

The key benefit to this is that it will allow entities (other than Steemit, Inc.) to make proposals for various things that will improve the value of Steem - such as development projects, marketing, etc. Since I joined Steem back in 2016, one thing that I have heard people say over and over again is "Steemit is not doing this" and "Steemit is not doing that". With a funding source that stakeholders can allocate towards various projects, we will now have the opportunity to pay for some of these things ourselves.

Whether it will be successful remains to be seen, but if participants and stakeholders take it seriously and use it well - there is a lot of potential to add a lot of value to the platform - for both stakeholders and users.

One of the big sticking points on this proposal is how to fund it. From what I have heard, Steemit, Inc. is planning to provide some level of "seed" money to get it going. This would be a finite amount of funds though, so there has been a lot of discussion on how to sustain the SPS fund long-term. The main idea on the table is to divert a portion (likely somewhere around 10%) of the inflation currently going into the rewards pool to the SPS fund. I realize there is a lot of controversy surrounding this - which I will touch on later on in the post.

Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP)

The EIP is the second part of HF21 that is being discussed. This is a collection of three main changes that stakeholders and witnesses have been proposing as ways to improve the economics behind Steem.

The three changes included in the EIP are explained in detail in this post from @steemitblog.

The TLDR version of the changes is:

Moving from a linear rewards curve to a convergent linear rewards curve.
Increasing the percentage of rewards that are distributed to curators.
Create a separate “downvote pool.”

Opinions on HF21

Thought process behind the changes

I suspect it is going to be hard for most users to see how these changes are going to make things better for them (especially when viewed in isolation). I suspect most users will translate the changes into:

More power for whales
More money for whales
Less money for authors
More downvote abuse

Before you go down that path though, I suggest you ask yourself: Does it really seem like Steem is working well the way it is today? I feel that pretty much everyone that has been here for long enough knows that the system we have in place today is not working.

Bid bots pretty much rule the platform.
Very few stakeholders are spending time looking for quality contributions to reward.
Many users who contribute a lot to the platform struggle to get any decent rewards.
Little to no marketing is being done.
Very few changes that users have been asking for are actually getting done.
The STEEM price has fallen significantly from the all-time-high, and there is not much optimism for it going much higher than it is today. In fact, a lot of people are worried that it will just continue to go lower.

A lot of users, stakeholders, and witnesses have been talking about the issues surrounding Steem for years now. There have been tons of proposals and plans, but very little has been done to improve the situation since the last economic hardfork (HF16).

One thing a lot of users likely don't understand is how difficult it is to go from an "idea" to a successful hardfork. I have seen and discussed hundreds (possibly even thousands) of ideas during my time as a witness. Getting enough people to support an idea, then getting someone to actually develop + test code for it, and then getting a super-majority of witnesses go agree to adopt it is REALLY HARD.

The EIP (combined with the SPS) is not a perfect / ideal solution that is going to magically solve all of our problems. It is a culmination of several years worth of discussions among a lot of very smart users, stakeholders, witnesses, and people at Steemit, Inc though - who have all been trying to come up with a way to fix this place and make it better. It represents a consensus on items that we believe will improve the platform and that we can actually get to the finish line.

The Goal

The goal of HF21 (whether you believe it will actually work or not) is to try and make this place better for all of us. Making it better means encouraging more of the behavior that we want, and discouraging the behavior we don't want. It means more money going into the hands of users who are contributing to the value of Steem, and less money going into the hands of the users who are just here to leach. Hopefully, this leads to more value being generated - which can potentially lead to a higher STEEM price.

My Thoughts

HF21 in it's current form is not what I personally view as the best path forward. If it were 100% up to me, there are a lot of things I would do differently. Despite my objections over individual items in the proposal however, I do see the "package" of changes as a significant improvement from where we currently are.

The outcome of HF21 is impossible to predict. While we have had a lot of very smart minds talking about these changes for a very long time, the big unknown is how all of this will affect user behavior. Will we shift users into more of a mindset where the goal is to reward what we want to encourage, and penalize what we want to discourage? Or will we just end up with more of the same - users trying to maximize short-term personal gain at the expense of everyone else? I really hope that it is the former, but unless/until the changes are live - there is really no way to know.

Authors will likely complain over what appears to be a more than 50% reduction in their rewards. While I fully understand the concern, and it is 100% legitimate - I am looking at it from a much different angle. Instead about worrying about how cutting the rewards of a quality member from $10 to $5 is going to hurt retention - I want to figure out how we get to a point where that user is earning $100 or even $1000.

Will we get to that point? I don't know.

What I do know though, is we need some major changes to the system in order to even have a chance of getting there. It is not guaranteed to work by any means, but in my mind - SPS + EIP is the first step.

Comments · 131

@steemitboard(66)· 2591d
Congratulations @timcliff! You received a personal award!

Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 3 years!
_{You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking}

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
@briggsy(65)· 2602d
I tried a year or two ago to create a reward incentive program on Steem through a different steem account, where people would submit content by using a tag, the best content would be combine into a daily post, with a monthly lottery that randomly rolled 3 winners for a steem reward.

My experience from that nearly year-long experiment concluded that most steem users who participated were genuine, although I would say 10-20% were plagiarizing deliberately to participate, and my blocked user list was massive for it. The rest of the participants were genuine and couldn't believe it when they won the monthly lottery and had their work showcased.

But, it was unsustainable on its own. At first it was sustainable and user upvotes kept the system afloat. But as time progressed the power of thousands of user upvotes barely amounted to anything, and so I created a seperate pool of Steem that I used to buy upvotes on the daily showcase posts in the hopes to get more exposure and more upvotes to pay for the monthly reward, but bumping the post reward up into the realm of $100+ did nothing to bring in more votes or views.

I ended the experiment because steem itself did not work in a way that it logically should, and large whales soaked it all up. This is how it works in the real world, so monetarily there is little reason for a new user to believe that their work into the platform will reward them in any manner, and my own experience backs that up.

It seems this hardfork attempts to address some of these problems, and it will be interesting in the years to come to see where the Steem ecosystem ends up.
@steemingmark(56)· 2622d
Does any1 know how to auto upvote comments please? Thanks again Mark

Posted using Partiko Android
@cryptohazard(63)· 2626d
I don't know what to think of Steem any more, I seriously don't!
@briand(25)· 2627d
Someone should explain the current economic system of steemit and then we can think about improvements.
@distantsignal(66)· 2627d
This proposal is a steeming pile of hot garbage. You're tinkering around with rewards incentives that pull rewards away from authors to the tune of 25% without addressing the biggest problem Steem has.

EASE OF USE.

You want to make Steem better, make it easier for newbies. Every one I've signed up has given up within two days of using the platform because they get confused and frustrated! They don't get enough initial SP to vote enough to explore and they leave!

Meanwhile, you're proposing taking more rewards away from me and fellow authors. I spend HOURS creating thoughtful content. Researching, writing, photo editing, video creation, et al and you want to make it even harder for me to earn my small rewards?!

This "big picture" mentality truly misses the point. Without authors, you have NOTHING. Absolutely nothing and if you make it less desirable to create, authors will leave. Coupled with a lack of focus on end user experience and you've got a poison pill and then it's bye-bye, Steem.
@notconvinced(62)· 2627d
I learned nothing from this post, other than there's going to be an HF21...
@rafagonzalez(53)· 2627d
Saludos y felicitaciones por informart tan claro@timcliff, es bueno cuando el lider habla con los pequeños y da detalles de lo que pasa, Sus temores sus perspectiva de las cosas eso le oxigena el alma y hace ajustar mejor la visión. Es claro que las la mayoría de las ballenas que crearon el sistema entre esos creo esta Ud, tienen la mejor disposició de que steem no desaparezca. La confución de la visión es el problema. Veo que para la mayoría la retribución de dinero mal habido y que llegue a tu bosilllo lo más rapido posible es la prioridad; pero le hablo en nombre de mles que hacen de steem su ilusuón de cada día, no por la remuneración y el dinero sino por la democratización de que tus datos esten en lugar seguro y además recibas una retribución justa. Si el punto es uq que hay que curar un 75% ara que la plataforma mejore eso es lo que hay que hacer. Disminuiran los autores pero aún no se ha llegado a todos los autores potenciales de la red así que no hay que tener miedo...adelante... hagan lo que tengan que hacer

...rafa
@majes.tytyty(79)· 2628d
Thanks for the clarifications.

I agree fully that what we need to do is what is good for the platform as a whole, and for its future.

While everyone would love to gain short-term profits, and no-one wants to decrease the current rate of profits, such short-term goals are pointless if we cannot maintain and grow the system. I fully support any efforts that will ensure the stability and long-term growth of the platform.

Full Steem Ahead!
@ambr.global(51)· 2629d
Awesome stuff!
@aserhd007(25)· 2629d
Integrated analysis I have benefited a lot thank you
@arshad1214(44)· 2630d
1like= 0.05$ 100likes=5$ 1000likes=50$ 1$ per signup stpe by step guide: 1..join here: https://www.belacam.com/ref/arshad1214 2..verify your email... 3..post your picture and earn 0.05$ when simelike your picture... Good Luck.... Join our fb group to get more info: https://web.facebook.com/groups/Earnmoneyonlinewithshadda/

Note: earn 506$ totally free click here
@sohanisti(36)· 2630d
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING but writing this bullshit posts that says ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING and earning for it. Where's your bullshit node list nobody fucking cares about?excellent post...
@crypto.piotr(65)· 2630d
Dear @timcliff

I just re-read your publication. Appreciate all your efforts.

You've mentioned:

Authors will likely complain over what appears to be a more than 50% reduction in their rewards

Is it somehow related to this part?

Increasing the percentage of rewards that are distributed to curators.

Does it mean that authors would be receiving less from reward pool, but curators would be receiving more? Do I understand well?

I would obviously love to reward curators for their efforts. But curating right now seem to be focused on upvoting posts. We shall find ways to encourage people to comment and to reward those comments.

I'm trying to see big picture here, however Im not sure if HF21 will bring us closer to where we want to go, or will push us futher away. After all increasing curation rewards will mostly benefit bidbots. Or perhaps I'm wrong?

Yours Piotr
@hobo.media(64)· 2631d
The issue with going at the author rewards is, ultimately, the value all comes from the authors. Developers build the "coliseum", but its the gladiators (authors) that get the crowd cheering.

The problem here is that everything is being designed to go after author rewards. The beneficiary fee takes from the authors, which means that every business planning to build a platform is going to take a chunk out of the author's income. So, its not really 50/50, businesses will take their cut out of the author's 50%.

The reason why authors needed that 75% was because businesses are going to take from that 75%. For example, dsound takes 25%, so that means any musicians/podcasters are only going to receive 25% of the rewards. This stinks of the same financial betrayal of content producers that youtubers and webmasters have experienced with ad revenue.

Corporations ruin everything and gut operations by catering to investors over customers. Steem seems to be headed down that same path. If anything, we should take from the stake interest. If quality content producers become attracted to Steem the stakers will see positive ROI regardless of the inflation.

The inflation should not be a problem for stakers at all because Steem is nowhere near the size it has the potential to get to be. The problem is that Steem is unattractive to top level content producers, and the real reason that is so is because its overly fixated on appealing to investors and not content producers/consumers.

I think @yabamatt said it best when he related Steem to Wordpress. Steem is meant for businesses to create social sites all over the web and take a cut of the author funds. We have to leave enough for the authors to actually bother.
@jakiro12(66)· 2631d
how it s working, i cant understand everything, is so good to be real
@machnbirdsparo(66)· 2632d
Yeah, something needs to change.

At 500 power we get a slider, but my vote value is like a penny. For active engagement this really tells me there is no value of voting here on Steemit.

I amassed 500 power when the price was between 2 to 4 $. Now, I'm thankful anytime it seems to approach 50 cents. It's a wonder why someone would pay a grand for a platform that only recognizes them after expending the price of a new car.

While removing the linear monetary mechanism would turn away a whale or two, do we think that even one who is here for "social" reasons would be dismayed by the activity of active sliders picking up a dollar a day?

Crypto is about tangible stuff. Right now, our votes are not. Funny how I would feel better if the slider was engaged at 10k rather than 500. At least I would think there was long-term thinking behind the system.
@ana101321(54)· 2634d
I see it is not easy for the new comes to Steemit!
@ate-bit-dave(56)· 2634d
You have some good points, I have another comment not mentioned anywhere nor have I seen it addressed. As the platform has expanded worldwide my feed is crammed with a lot of multi-language posts. Which on one hand is cool, as it shows growth. I guess in future upgrades would be nice to have some sort of language filter. Being bi-lingual it would be neat to select just posts in the languages I would like to read. Not sure who to mention this too or where to talk about it. It's a drag to scroll through pages of posts I can't read :-)
@kimmysomelove42(59)· 2634d
Way to stir up the wasp nest!

I'm not quite sure what to say. I've been here steady for just over a year and am almost to a BIG whoppin 260SP LOL! Minnow status might be reached by 2030 at this rate.. Something might need to be done asap!! Orange Alert Orange Alert Orange Alert.... help a sister out, Anybody?

Yeah I concur @timcliff. If you are not active in discord or engaging in every weekly challenge it's a pretty quiet atmosphere. I enjoy the small groups that have applicable information and interacting in discord, just wish it crossed over to my blog page?

It appears as if I have mostly bid bots liking my posts? If I put more quality and info or time into my posts the interaction and response is the same as if it is just a picture post. Perhaps it's because no one is interested in posts themed around LOVE or Gardening...;(

I've learned a ton on this forum, and hope to continue to in many aspects; writing, coding, editing photos and most of all inspiration to 1,000's of viable humans seeking and acting for a better world.

Thanks for sharing your opinion and info on this topic....
@evilangel90(48)· 2637d
Hey very nice job, thanks to sharing us this info, let's see what will happen, And i hope that developers will never give up. Steem and steemit can change the social media conception in the real close future...
@reyvaj(60)· 2637d
The problem with Steemit are the whales. What would I do if I were a whale? Very simple, I would sell almost all of the Steem I earn, because I produce it too easy to keep it and I do not need more SP than what I already have to continue earning a lot of Steem. What you have to do then is to reduce the proportion of Steem gain achieved by those who have more and increase the proportion of those who have less. How? You could apply what would be a kind of progressive tax on profits. Whoever wins the most, the highest percentage of retention has.
@reyvaj(60)· 2637d
Hello, @timcliff. When will that HF take place?
@toddrjohnson(54)· 2638d
Huh? Real author rewards at this point are practically non-existent, but you are saying that an HF that reduces those rewards by 50% will make steem better? Sorry, but no. My incentive to use steem will drop even more if thisis done.
@daniel.gz20(10)· 2638d
rxcelente https://veneapp.com/2019
@mrnazrul(53)· 2638d
Dear #timcliff What you have tried to highlight in your delightful presentation may be useful sometimes. It is possible to take the two of the ways firmly. Here everyone can get a monotonous sexual description or sexual entertainment can be published. It is beautiful or well-known, it is illusive. Useful or evil is beneficial, which will attract everyone but will not see anything inconvenience. Thanks so much from Bangladesh for bringing such a tactful post.
@pagandance(56)· 2638d
- Wouldn't it be much easier to hack some php wordpress thing blog/forum together.
- Without all the blockchain nonsense.
- Where you can put your btc adress at the bottom of your blogpost and if people want to pay you, they do, if they don't want to, they don't
- Where you can make a list of posters you don't want to comment / vote on your blog.
I know I am gonna throw some few hours in something like this and see where it lands
@jacobtothe(77)· 2639d
I wonder whether the bid bots could be countered by a captcha system of some kind. Incorporating it into the frontend sites is one thing, but coding for CLI and whatever other bot systems are in use is another. And then there's the problem of captchas being generally annoying to the real human users we want to encourage to curate. It's probably not a solution for abuse, but maybe thinking outside the box of tweaking reward percentages will spark someone to find a better solution at least.
@artgirlnyc(62)· 2639d
From what I’ve seen about it it’s most definitely not a good move. I’m not enjoying steemit as it is lately. It seems like the heart of steemit has been taken and crushed :(
@madalchemist(50)· 2639d
".......test code for it, and then getting a super-majority of witnesses go agree to adopt it is REALLY HARD."

Maybe we have to get rid of witnesses who are blocking change, oh wait we can't it's up to @freedom the sketchiest account in history to pick witnesses. People wonder why the price is dropping, well the problems seem unfixable. The users here cant really pick witesses, its just the illusion of choice. Witnesses vote in their own self interests not in the best interest of the community. I'd be very surprised to see any real changes here
@mikehamm(70)· 2639d
You made 3 good points in this posts that I wanted to comment on:
- Bid bots pretty much rule the platform.
- Very few stakeholders are spending time looking for quality contributions to reward.
- Many users who contribute a lot to the platform struggle to get any decent rewards.
Let's start with the last one. New people coming into Steemit don't have a large following and won't be getting payouts, no matter how good of an author they may be. Cutting the author rewards isn't going to encourage newcomers into the platform.

Now the first two points. Bid bots do control this platform because everyone knows very few people actually read post here. To make any kind of return on your effort one has to utilize the bid bots to get it. And the bid bots make money from curation. People also sell votes on posts they never read. Instead of looking for quality post to read and make comments on. These seem to be the activities you would like to minimize on the platform.

Increasing the curation reward at the expense of the author is rewarding the behavior you want to minimize. Currently if a post makes $10, that's $7.50 to the author and $2.50 to the curators. Increasing the curator portion to 50% currently would only reward bid bots and vote sellers even more.

Why stop at 50% anyway? Why not make it 75%, 90%, or even 100%? The result is going to be the same, there will be fewer posts on here to curate. By the way, this will be the same regardless of a post making $10 or $100.

How about looking for a method to actually reward people that read the post and make a valid comment on the content of the post. You have to find a way to do this without rewarding the bots that go around upvoting or downvoting automatically also.

In my opinion, simply increasing the curation rewards will only result in fewer people writing posts on Steemit.
@aaliyahholt(71)· 2639d
Oh God. I hope it's not as bad as the last HF when 90% of the users could not do anything on the site
@machnbirdsparo(66)· 2639d

get paid a predetermined amount for proposed work.

This should help me as a professional writer, correct?
@terminators(25)· 2640d
proposal is good.
@piet246(25)· 2640d
Hi all i am new on steemit it and i post articles so far and didnt earn anything. But indirect i earned 1000 dogecoins by sharing the link of this article on tipestry.
https://steemit.com/dogecoin/@piet246/tipestry-cool-new-site-to-post-and-get-tipped-in-dogecoin-and-other-cryptocurrencies In this way you still can earn even if you dont earn anything on steemit.
@chaintribe-news(57)· 2640d
Thanks for the good work. We need more witnesses with such effort!
@octobre(59)· 2640d

...appears to be a more than 50% reduction in autors rewards.

Himmmm, am i wrong? Do we have a steemit tax now?
@carlgnash(71)· 2640d
Will we shift users into more of a mindset where the goal is to reward what we want to encourage, and penalize what we want to discourage? Or will we just end up with more of the same - users trying to maximize short-term personal gain at the expense of everyone else?
... game theory? We know the answer. You don't have to guess. The answer is more of the same, maximize short-term personal gain. I honestly can't believe that otherwise smart people like @kevinwong have been so bullish for 50% curation. It is an absolute pie-in-the-sky fantasy to think that increasing curation rewards will do anything but decrease rewards going to smaller authors. Guess what - 100% return on your vote (by self voting) is still twice as much as 50% return on your vote under a proposed increase to curation rewards. What a joke. It is a real shame that the steem proposal system (which is clearly a good idea, regardless of how it is funded) is being bundled with the rest. We don't need a hardfork to stop bid bots, just change the TOS to align with the white paper's supposed "proof of brain" and make vote buying/selling against TOS, and delegate a portion of Stincs SP to flagging posts that buy votes. Done. Is this so hard? Also, for the love of all that is good, can people stop voting for witnesses who are also bid bot operators? Thanks.
@yusnidarakj(48)· 2640d
Thank you for a very good idea👍
@berniesanders(77)· 2640d
Speaking of "leaches", you're one of the biggest on the platform. Sitting in the top 20 witnesses doing ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING but writing this bullshit posts that says ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING and earning for it. Where's your bullshit node list nobody fucking cares about?

Go fuck yourself already Tim, worthless LEACH.
@sweetsnax(41)· 2641d
Hi, @timcliff, I am from @Snaxteam. Hardfork is the most discussed news on Steem the last days. And since the topic of rewards is touched on here, you must have heard about our Snax project? Snax is a blockchain platform. It was created for people to receive rewards for their social activity (tweets, Steem posts, and so on). We have our own view on a fair distribution of rewards, different from Steem (this is described here https://hackernoon.com/decentralizing-social-media-rewards-steem-and-snax-comparison-ac17201824cc). For example, your post was so popular that it brought you to the top of the ranking https://snax.one/steem?page=1. Join now and start getting a Snax reward https://snax.one/. Ready to answer your questions here. Or you can write to us in the channel Discord https://discordapp.com/channels/509371605542109185/578602854437093426/ We will be glad to see you in our community)
@coininstant(69)· 2641d
This sounds like it might just work!
@jeff-kubitz(67)· 2641d
Thanks for explaining how hard it is to get changes. I believe I was the first steemian to suggest and layout how advertising would help steemit keep it alive and thriving. Well, advertising happened and yep, it helps! By the way the page layout is better than what I came up with so long ago
@xxrdx(30)· 2641d
nice thinking sir, Great
@digicus(59)· 2641d
L'idea non è male
@angryman(69)· 2641d

I suspect it is going to be hard for most users to see how these changes are going to make things better for them (especially when viewed in isolation). I suspect most users will translate the changes into:

AND... Perception, is the accepted truth in most minds.

Personally, I'll wait to see the effect/affect and decide whether I stay on-board after HF-21 and how I adjust to the changes should I choose to remain active.
@lordnigel(67)· 2642d
A few thoughts..

Please don't implement Hf21, without a good strawman of HF22 ready to go and share this also.

The Steem improvements aren't all failures like some say (making steem not worth much - this simply isn't true) but if we don't plan properly and engage stakeholders fully, we plan to fail and anything goes.

I understand its not possible to please everyone, but the leadership groups must set measurable objectives, declare these and make these more transparent.

Rather then moan about it I've offered to help to building a good enterprise strategy & engaging many stakeholders - but seems no-one in power here wants it?! I'm not the best out of my peers in this area, but I've had many years of success.

..... techo's don't really like to produce business plans, experienced marketers also can't do this (as much as they think they can at times). For strategy, you need strategists and you need to demonstrate sound strategy if you want investors.

It's fine to have optimistic views and get it wrong. There is nothing wrong with the current leadership group here. There is nothing wrong with the strong marketting focus/approach. There is a lack of people with enterprise experience and engaging multiple stake holders (diplomacy) to develop multi year strategies/business planning. This is incredibly difficult..and demonstrated constantly as played down.

Wealth will come from having a successful Steem blockchain that delights people - this is how Steem began and it needs to return to its roots.

Sorry if this upsets people (or hits people in the ego at the top) - I've read several comments by people who clearly have some experience being ignored.

True the messages are getting more aggressive, but its time to sit up and listen...it's possible the leaders here have, but it's not being demonstrated.

I wish us well and really do hope HF21 has a great positive effect...whatever that may be eludes me for the moment outside of every ones complaints might be fixed.

At the time of writing this comment, this post has raised $81??? It's a good post that raises good points to discuss...but $81+??

If someone in power with some enterprise leadership experience, a top witness or a member of the Steem board reads this message - please msg me for help
@voxxe(52)· 2642d
Can we eliminate downvoting entirely? Can someone please tell me why it is needed? Besides allowing whales to censor what they don't like I mean. Downvoting is the death of free-speech on social media.
@knowhow92(79)· 2642d
I have been reading comments at this post for over half an hour now and all I can see is people actually talking to each other, proposing ideas, fighting and clarifying their intentions.But if you look at the bigger picture this all show hundreds of people who actually care about what will happen to this platform even if they keep saying "I am powering down" etc.That's a good thing in my eyes.

I will not propose anything cause I suck at these things, I create content and trying to run a healthy community in here. The only thing I want to mention is that if rewards for curators drop to 50/50 we MIGHT be able to see a more healthy upvote model for Steem BUT this will most definitely hurt new accounts. We need communities that will support the minnows when they join the platform.Real communities run by real people and of course we need whales to wake up and start manual curation with a 50/50 model.
@arunava(76)· 2642d
@timcliff I read the entire article and the only thing that worries me is the Increase of Curation Rewards. If I am not wrong the proposal is a 50/50 Split between Author and Curation Rewards but then where would the Beneficiary Rewards go. If we factor in the Beneficiary Rewards that almost all the Daaps take which is a Minimum of 10% then we get 40% Author Reward 50% Curation Reward and 10% Beneficiary Reward this will most certainly act as a catalyst for more users to Leave Steemit. Plus there would be a Possibility that people might stop using these Daaps that take Beneficiary Rewards and these Daaps might go Under.

I agree that with the increase in Curation Rewards people might go for more Curation but then again if you see this Differently f more People look for Curation there might not be a lot of Content to curate. Only a Handful of People will be Creating Content and all the STEEM will get accumulated on their accounts.

There is also the possibility of People creating different accounts to just Upvote each other thus keeping 100% of their Rewards in which case the Increase of Curation Rewards will do absolutely nothing other than steering away more people from this Platform.

I believe the 75/25 Split in favor of Author Reward is perfect for now as this gives a perfect incentive for both Authors and Curators to do their Jobs. I will agree that there are fewer Curators when compared to the number of Authors but then again I feel we also need Authors to Run this Platform.
@fracasgrimm(61)· 2642d
Idea for whatever kind utensil y'all wanna call it.... posts earn rewards for 3 days instead of 7. Allow for percentages in powerdowns. Instead of 13 weeks, allow a quicker route, charge if you must for the 'convenience' to our own funds. This type of shit is too slow, IMO. Lets stream line some shit. What is the point of having lighting fast P2P, if yet we can't actually access it via our powerdown? Come smarty, it's simple stupid.
@india1967(33)· 2642d
Steemit is good platform but whale's control all the places for example bitcoin 😓
@stillwater(61)· 2642d
I'm in on anything that will actually make steemit better and raise the awareness of steem and its value to greater heights. I think it's a wonderful place and a great idea but has been let out into the yard, so to speak, for too long. Let's reel it in a bit and make changes that count! Nice one! Enjoyed.
@indigoocean(69)· 2642d
Some of these changes would move us closer to the business model over on PublishOx, specifically the change in payout balance between curation and creation. I appreciate the efforts to keep innovating for improvement on this chain, and want to be 100% gungho about a proposal that seems like it can get implemented toward that end, but my experience with PublishOx makes me doubtful.

On POx everyone starts as only a curator, so the emphasis is definitely on earning from curation. I don't think they even have bidbots yet, or a trending page. You have to apply to become a content creator. But you know, I just can't get myself to use that site.

Why? Because it takes me more time to read several low payout articles to get to a certain curation reward than to write one and get a mid-sized reward I can expect for my quality content. Plus sometimes I get to the end of a post and realize it doesn't deserve my upvote, but I still invested that time. I know the time I invest in creating content is well spent. That is within my control.

I think the behavior of shifting rewards from authors to curators will make authors feel more insecure about payouts for their time, while quickly showing them that the time it will now take reading in order to earn the same total payouts on the platform is simply more time than they want to invest. So what we're really counting on is that more people can be attracted to the platform as content consumers who want to buy STEEM to increase their rewards for reading. To me that's a harder sell than attracting people who want to buy STEEM to increase their rewards for sharing writing, photos, videos, etc. Creators are already more proactive and involved than consumers, which is a more passive stance. Buying STEEM (even just learning how) may require more initiative than the passive consumer really has.

Of course, my priorities may make me an outlier, and maybe in general something different could be expected. We can look at how PublishOx winds up performing for a preview.

I like others would like to see a less severe payout shift, to see if it does in fact start moving the stats in the right direction. I would also like to see the elimination of the Trending page, which I think will make bidbots irrelevant.
@socky(73)· 2642d
Price of STEEM has nothing to do with who gets paid and everything to do with how STEEM functions as a currency. There is a growing number of exchanges trading cryptocurrency that don't trade STEEM. Until an effort is put into place to increase STEEM dominance as a currency on exchanges, it will continue to drop. All the hare forks in the world will not make a difference. Go ahead and have your hard fork. You will see.
@cats(40)· 2643d
++

convergent linear rewards curve.

Can someone explain what does it mean?
@enthef(45)· 2643d
I think the world wasn't ready for us yet and we need to keep building to show what we are made of. Over the past year I have seen this platform grow in positive ways.
@ongunyo93(35)· 2643d
Ok. I see.
@stephen-somers(64)· 2643d
Not a fan of downvote rewards pool, the downvote has been the cause of so much abuse. I can’t fathom why we’d reduce author rewards when minnows get nothing anyway. No way to encourage authors and as for curation rewards it’s still a mystery to me how they’re calculated and people use scripts to game the system anyway. It’s sad to see so many great Steemians jumping ship over these proposed changes.
@hooiyewlim(74)· 2643d
The problem is not with the system . The problem is the human being . steemit user reap what they sow . The idea behind steemit is to let the consumer pay the content creator directly .

The situation won't be so worse if everyone just go and bloody vote. Instead they all think it is smarter to sell vote.

When content creator start leaving , everyone start crying foul . what you expect ?

It is like asking a chef to come to a restaurant to cook for you without paying .

Even i stop doing Dtube because nobody want to vote my post. I have cost to cover.

Now it is like customer at restaurant asking for free meal and do you think those chef want to work at this kind of restaurant that pay them peanut and expect them to cook a great meal?

While it is true some are self voting , the rest could have make some changes by just voting the content creator to keep them alive.
@chelsea88(64)· 2643d
Thanks for sharing @timcliff. I do not like the idea of receiving a "pre determined " amount for my posts. That's a strange concept to me. Not a fan. This is coming from somebody who has relatively high community engagement at over 13,000 comments. Due to financial reasons in my personal life have had to power down and don't have as high of "stake" anymore because of that but still, this just seems a bit unfair
@jphamer1(62)· 2643d
I might be wrong in this but from what i gather for steem to work as intended, people need to power up as much steem as possible and people need an incentive to do this. The result is liquid steem comes off the exchanges, and incentivises curators which are the source of all the pay outs and so encourages content creators. The price of steem should then rise as it becomes less available in liquid form.
@eliasseth(63)· 2643d
An interesting reading!
@hermandadsteem(71)· 2643d
¡Buen día, gracias por su interes, me uno a su sentir y buen hacer!
@miniature-tiger(70)· 2643d
Moving from a linear rewards curve to a convergent linear rewards curve.

Are the parameters for the convergent linear curve available? The devil is in the detail on this change.

From looking at the vandeberg deep dive post, if you are the first voter on a post / comment, then:
- A HF20 $0.02 upvote could initially add $0.00 to a post / comment under HF21.
- A HF20 $0.10 upvote could initially add $0.01 to a post / comment under HF21.
In both cases I'm not sure of the numbers, hence the request for the parameters.

Both upvotes would increase back up to (and indeed slightly above) their HF20 values if enough value is added to the post in total.

A communication piece explaining how this particular change will affect smaller votes would be useful. Including what level of overall post value makes for a reasonably "efficient" use of a vote. When HF21 kicks in, this effect will probably come as a surprise to many users.
@chireerocks(75)· 2644d
@timcliff, No matter we accept or not but changes are ever coming aspect and no one can stop Change. And if we will not evolve and change then we will going to move towards the Stagnancy.

Posted using Partiko Android
@organduo(73)· 2644d
How about banning all bidbots altogether?

Posted using Partiko Android
@lennstar(66)· 2644d

Many users who contribute a lot to the platform struggle to get any decent rewards.

As long as it is more important what you are writing about than how good your writing is, that won't change.

Best "anime" post of the day? 20 cent. Mediocre art post? 2 dollar. Autogenerated soothsaying Bitcoin chart? 5 dollar!
@lordbutterfly(80)· 2644d

I want to figure out how we get to a point where that user is earning $100 or even $1000.

That will literally never happen. There is no scenario where a single quality creator increases average earnings so much (unless Steem goes to 100USD today) under any circumstance. The platform isnt built that way. You have a an upper ceiling on what a creator can earn and i think i could do a break down of each creator group to tell you exactly how much they can earn pretty easily. Due to the very nature of those that do redistribute their votes you can never have anyone stand out. The "very best" and the "decent enough" will earn around the same with the focus on consistency and content quantity. If you consider that, then thinking that someone will have such a jump in earnings (or even something close) when you cut author rewards across the board doesnt really make much sense.

What i expect to happen is an initial curation surge by proposal supporters that will dwindle after a short time when people realize that curation is damn hard and not very fun. Some quality creators will get a few more votes from kevin and the gang which wont amount to much due to the massive cut, the curation philosophy and because we all have friends (orcas as well) we like here that arent amazing creators, but can make a shit ton of photos daily (lol); smaller accounts, dolphins, minnows etc. wont change their voting behavior. Vote selling will still be a thing. A few curation services might pop up eventually that will either maximize curation returns with "questionable practices" and vote subpar content that maximizes returns.

I sincerely believe that this will be the case. An initial shift in behavior from proposal supporters to prove that the proposal was right and a swift adjustment to reality.
@cardboard(65)· 2644d
If this aims to limit the bidbots - they will just move to "vote selling" system where users give them permission to use their vote - so they can get the curation. Probably that's gonna be the only real change.

Can I just point out, that if I want to see content from #cars or #netflix, I need to manually type the URL in the browser, like in early 90s? Why there is no tag following? Or favorite tags?

Steemit is just a shell of a website, yet we change blockchain rules every few months just to realize that it doesn't fix the inferior user experience. And than we ask why retention is so low :/

We can't even send a tip... in a social platform oriented on cryptocurrency paid to content creators...
@abitcoinskeptic(75)· 2644d
You have been on my witness list for a while and it's because of your well-balanced mindset. A lot of the ideas in HF21 seems to be something worth trying and if it backfires, I'm sure the witnesses can dump it just as fast as they made it.
@mrosenquist(72)· 2644d
A few thoughts:
1. Social platforms require interaction between people. Kill the bots. They have enabled people to simply put it on auto-drive and no longer directly participate.
2. Content is king. Therefore prioritize authors over curators. If the authors continue to leave, there will be nothing(good) left for curators to curate!
3. Competition (Winter) is here. Steemit once held a long-lead as the crypto reward social site. No longer. Sites like Minds, HyperSpace, Trybe, Publish0x, and others are direct competitors and others are on the way with big names behind them (ex. Facebook). Even off-shoots like Golos, WhaleShare, Weku Serey, Bihu, etc. are also diluting participation. Either fix the development/consensus model or replace it so Steemit can be at the forefront of usability/features. Adapt rapidly to users needs or die.
4. Have a backout plan. Some changes require a production release, we get that. Use the Beta premise for those. If it sucks, you need to back it out. Changes are good but put in an automatic method to reverse if it does not pan out. Only if people like it after a trial period should it remain, else it is walked back. Use that as your consensus method. Instituting a bad idea, knowing that it will be VERY HARD to remove, is shortsighted.
@len.george(63)· 2644d
When I joined some 2 1/2 years ago, the idea I was told, was to have people writing stories/blogs and be rewarded accordingly. The idea was to have a social spot that might, if you were lucky, allow you to make a buck or two. For this to happen there had to be authors, or there was nothing to read. Lately, everything has become "make a buck at any cost", and screw the authors, probably not related, just happensense, since then we seem to be heading downhill, Advance to the past and make it worthwhile to write again, do away with bots, and only allow voting after the post has been opened and read, so you know what you are voting for.
@onthewayout(62)· 2644d
I think I am more an favor of financing the SPS with a cut to SP interest. I mean, it's currently just above 1% per year and we can make up for it with a change to 50/50 on the rewards distribution.
@summertooth(74)· 2644d
Please no please no please no.......
@prydefoltz(75)· 2644d
Sorry, the solution of increasing curation rewards just doesn't make sense if what you want is more engagement.

Very few stakeholders are spending time looking for quality contributions to reward.

If you want this to happen you must link payout to engagement and for EVERYONE. Assign an engagment quotient. A perfect score would be 1. So if you want to obtain your payout and all of it, you need a perfect EQ. Your EQ is earned through varied engagement, that is not just with upvoting a handful of accounts. This means that if I use a bid-bot, I am only half way to getting a payout. Now I must engage on the platform and upvote various other people. Or in the very least upvote and engage with the comments on my post.

The solution of giving more in curation rewards will do NOTHING. No, probably the opposite of improving engagement. If I am only upvoting myself, do I care if it comes through author rewards or curating rewards. NO. I get curation rewards from upvoting my own posts too and the bulk of it if I am large account. This will not encourage engagement and will likely drive smaller accounts to blockchains that have the very system we used to have. And bidbots will now receive a larger share of curating rewards too.

Go back to the drawing board. Increasing curating rewards is not the solution.
@ats-david(75)· 2644d
I feel that pretty much everyone that has been here for long enough knows that the system we have in place today is not working.

Yes, and some people knew that the current system wouldn't work well before it was implemented by STINC and the top-20 witnesses that rubber-stamped the changes. Pretty much the entire list that followed the sentence above existed prior to HFs 17-19 and other aspects were exacerbated by those changes.

Now, the people who supported those changes and are finally admitting that the system is at least somewhat broken are seemingly both for and against these new (actually, very old) proposals.

There was a rather influential group of users who discussed at length the reward curve in early 2017, back when it was n², and pretty much none of us thought linear rewards were a good idea or a solution for any existing issues. If I'm not mistaken, you were even a part of that discussion. I have no idea how linear rewards became an actual proposal and then was actually accepted by top witnesses, but it was a travesty that this protocol was implemented.

Returning to anything more than linear is a fantastic idea.

Likewise, returning a larger percentage of the reward pool to users based on their investment and activity on the chain is a fantastic idea. Just like the linear curve was a bad idea, so was changing post-curation rewards from 50/50 to 75/25...and in reality, due to the 30-minute reverse-auction window, that was skewed to ~88/12 in favor of authors.

So when authors complain about how many rewards they're going to lose out on, I do not feel bad for them at all, since it requires no investment whatsoever for them to post, earn, and cash out their rewards in order to "get paid" at the expense of those buying STEEM and powering it up. And I say this as someone who has posted a lot of content to this chain and have received a lot of rewards for doing so.

As an author, I have been greatly overpaid for my content in this Steem bubble compared to those who have invested and lost lots of money due to the imbalanced reward/incentive protocols.

As for the downvote pool - I don't think this will have much of an impact for the average person. Most users aren't avoiding downvotes because it costs them voting power and they get no rewards. They avoid it because they have been browbeaten into believing that downvotes are bad for the system and that those who downvote are somehow "evil." The culture here has never been great for honest curation and painting downvotes and downvoters as "toxic," "negative," or even comparing the downvotes to rape is absolutely ridiculous and more harmful to the platform than the actual votes cast.

Regarding the SPS, these are my thoughts on where that money should come from...

First, I would practically eliminate the "interest" on SP. It makes absolutely no sense to inflate a currency in order to pay people to partially compensate them for inflation. To me, that sounds like some Keynesian bullshit that does nothing but guarantee downward price pressure. Stakeholders should be rewarded for their activity (curation) and via capital appreciation. That means better incentives for holding SP and improving the actual economics and ecosystem - and the perception of it.

In other words: improved stakeholder incentives, better/more targeted development projects, actual commerce, and actual marketing to relevant companies/industries that would find the Steem blockchain useful (such as data management?).

Secondly, after virtually (or entirely) eliminating any of the absurd inflation-covering inflation payments, it would be best to slightly reduce top-20 witness rewards (since recent developments will apparently reduce costs for operating nodes) and redirect a small portion of what used to be the inflation-covering inflation payments to the new worker proposal fund.

Since author rewards are already being reduced to be fairly equal to curation rewards, I don't think we need a further reduction in author rewards at this time. (Although I still feel that 50% is too much for the mostly undesirable content that Steem has to offer to the average person on social media.)

So, that would be my proposal. TL;DR version is:
- 50/50 is great.
- Non-linear reward curve is great.
- Downvote pool will likely be inconsequential for most users.
- Eliminate inflation payments for covering inflation (because it's stupid).
- Slightly reduce top-20 witness rewards (since node costs are/will be reduced).
- Use some of those eliminated/reduced rewards to cover funding for the worker proposal system. Completely eliminate the rest of the rewards from inflation altogether to reduce the total amount.
If that can be done, I think we'd be in a much better position to attract investment and meaningful development. In turn, authors should be better compensated through a likely higher STEEM price and the amount of STEEM available for the proposal system will likely be more valuable. In my opinion, it's a net win for everyone, from content creators and consumers (curators) to witnesses and developers.

But for crying out loud...can we accompany this with some actual MARKETING of the CHAIN? Enough about the social aspect and how authors are "getting paid." Let's promote more of the fact that Steem is fast, free, and scalable! And maybe find businesses/companies/investors who can take advantage of that.
@cre47iv3(70)· 2644d

The outcome of HF21 is impossible to predict.

Are you serious? I mean... Its preety clear. Today you cant even invite newcommers because they can do what? 1 post every 3 days? And of course, you cant even answer your post comments because shitty RC.

CANT YOU PLEASE STOP TO KILLING LITTLE ACCOUNTS?

Just a thought you know... Or you, rich powerfull bosses want to stay alone on Steem sitting over your bots?

Im really trying to put my best to trust steem. Last fork just be the worst thing happen ever to Steem, and now, you accept the challenge to destroy even harder every new usser who dares to create a new account?

I want to figure out how we get to a point where that user is earning $100 or even $1000. Will we get to that point? I don't know.

Do you honestly believe that? Be serious, whales dont write, whales dont read, whales are not whales, are SNAKES.

Im just shocked.

Posted using Partiko Android
@vlemon(78)· 2644d
I agree with most of your post. Nevertheless I think the SPS is quite a big improvement that could lead to more developers working on the Steem platform. On the split between author and curator, I think this is too positive for curators and « whales ». Finally, I agree that the main reason I see for Steem being so low is the absence of marketing and on boarding campaigns ! Therefore, steem inc. should allow funds for this issue. Take care and thank you 🙏 for your very interesting post.

Posted using Partiko iOS
@lordnigel(67)· 2644d
I wish steem inc would do posts that explained things a bit better like you have in this post great post vs. the almost just trust me approach.

For what its worth I say thanks to those who put in all the hours with mostly no recognition and mainly complaint - coding something is one thing, getting it bug free and running super smooth and available is another.

I wish developers would help themselves by explaining a little more what they are aiming to fix, and then within a reasonable time frame, reporting how well they went.

When we set objectives they should be measurable. For example, this update will improve retention by 10% in 3 months. Show the stats before and after and confidently engage the community with evidence and explanation on the effort, result to see it was 'worth it' and demonstrate improvements.

Cheers
@ganjafarmer(76)· 2644d
End the tribalism with groups like canna and earthtribe from being abusive...

Let alone Steemflagrewards rewards running people off...

Honestly people here squabble over change...

I've done that as well.

When sfr flags a actual update live at a steemit meet-up?....

Yeah I'm not certain Steemit will make it long term the way things been going.

We will see what happens.
@jerrytsuseer(73)· 2644d
Hi @timcliff, you've been a big help to me a few times in Steemit chat/help etc... I respect you for that and for your obvious knowledge about all of the vagaries of the blockchain. I don't think if I were 20 yrs old again, able to maintain my Attention span for extended periods as I used to, I would EVER Understand all this. I came here for three reasons.
1. the promise of getting paid for posting what I did in FB for free
2. The absolutely WONDERFUL formatting options and landscape (as compared to FB and a few others) allowed me FAR better avenues of expression.
3. The (perhaps false) sense of security and permanence that The blockchain seems to afford me.
So, in the post above, you said: "It means more money going into the hands of users who are contributing to the value of Steem, and less money going into the hands of the users who are just here to leach."

I don't see what I do, posting original/inspirational poems/prose, Original photos and family stories, I don't see those "contributing To the Value of Steem", so by process of elimination, that makes Me a Leach. Not sure I like that appellation. Please tell me I've misinterpreted your statement.? I hope?
@pibara(68)· 2644d
Is there any way to create a proposal for consideration with respect to fixing the EIP? I feel strongly that implementation of the current EIP, most specifically of the convergent linear reward curve will be highly disruptive to the platform. The EIP, with exception of the flag pool, can easily be simulated with historic data, and running a few weeks of transactions through a simple simulation doesn't look like it creates any of the incentives that the proposal narrative states it would create.

I have a few simple concrete ideas that I believe could "fix" the EIP.

Is there any way to write up these fixes and get them to be considdered by Steemit Inc and the top witnesses before implementation of the EIP on HF21?
@beat-the-bookies(64)· 2644d

I suspect most users will translate the changes into:

More power for whales More money for whales Less money for authors More downvote abuse

I suspect most users are right.

I don't see the whales spending their time searching for the quality content to upvote. At best, the bid bots will be replaced by the curation bots. My prediction is that we'll see the whales running/delegating to the curation bots and those bots upvoting the golden boys 24/7.

Write good content, get rewarded is a lie. It's been since I've joined the platform and it will be in the future. Steemit is a collection of the upvote circles of various sizes and strength + bid bots.

The dApps and their creative use of the reward pool are the way forward. The quality content is neither being produced nor rewarded here. Nobody outside this bubble cares about it. Hell, even those here don't care about it.

What they care about is getting the big upvotes themselves. Just ask them what the quality content is... it's always their content first, their friends second, and at the distant 3rd place is an objectively good content produced by a talented author that's not in.

What I'm trying to say is that all those things that you hate, I like. My opinion is not a popular one but it is honest at least.

From what I've observed as an outsider, the loudest noise about the quality content is being made by those that lost the big upvotes when the bidbots showed up. The whales delegated their sp and the golden boys' posts payouts went down.

I can already see a bunch of self-righteous pricks running around downvoting those smaller than them. Fun times ahead.

In conclusion, the whales will get more than now, the golden boys will be downvoting the small guys that dared to use the bidbots...

PS - The proponents of this change should keep some numbers. Let's see how many whales are doing manual curation today, how many will be doing it 3 months after the hf.... I think we both know that whales won't be spending their time searching for the quality content to upvote. Curation bots here we come!
@steevc(80)· 2644d
I accept that there should be some sort of change, but it has to be for the good of Steem and not just to protect the investments of whales and orcas. If Steem cannot grow to hundreds of thousands of active users then it will stagnate. Something that dis-incentivises vote buying would help, but I am not sure what that should be. I would suggest that the calculation of account reputation should make repeated votes by the same account have less impact as we have various high rep accounts that have little community support.
@nationall(56)· 2644d
you are right I have two years on the site and I am writing and without interest I just became bored and not writing because I did not get enough support
@freddio(60)· 2644d
What do you think, if we change the current upvote name to Donation/support and add Like and Dislike at aditional Buttons.

So if i like a Author, i can push support and i can " like and dislike ".

I see the Problem, some content like on youtube gets more Downvotes then upvotes but a lot of attention.

In my opinion the attention has a worth too.

In gerneral i like the changes to get a fund for proposal. Because make the Steem Blockchain better is the long Term win.
@onthewayout(62)· 2644d
One consequence of changing the reward curve will be that it will be more profitable to cast 10 votes at 100% than more votes at a lower strength. So there will be less votes spread around. To what degree is this better or worse I am not sure.
@dksart(66)· 2644d
I have said this before in the past but in my opinion the best way to fix the current issues is with limited/free anonymous downvoting.

The majority of humans by nature do not like conflict, most humans try to avoid conflict. The current down voting system on the STEEM blockchain creates conflict and has a monetary cost.

The majority of users are not willing to downvote anything because they fear retaliation and would rather upvote to earn rewards.

Make downvotes anonymous so no user, big or small has to fear any retaliation from the user they downvoted.

Make limited downvotes free or almost free, maybe 1 - 3 free downvotes every 24 hours, if you downvote more than it starts to cost voting power just like upvoting.

This change would increase downvote participation and also increase the value of good posts, because the value of downvotes would go to posts that have not been downvoted.

This proposal overall is ok, but just making downvotes free is not going to change human behavior when they still fear retaliation from users with more STEEM power.
@doitvoluntarily(80)· 2644d
i'm excited to see what the future holds
@cryptoewp(70)· 2644d
The economy is important to me. Because the most important thing for the development of an ecosystem is the expansion of the economy. Bot services can be bad. Then you can take precautions. But it is very sad to give the economy to whales.

The most important thing in a social media is the number of content. What is the sustainability of the platform with the decrease in the number of content after this development? If this HF is realized, the steem economy will quickly collapse. I hope this mistake is returned.

The change here is not for the price rise. Monopolization of the economy. Because the supply of steem will not be reduced in any way. As the curators vote, the steem will continue to be generated. As a result, there will be no significant change in the amount of supply. But most of the power will be taken by whales. Then we'll see to have bigger losses here.

If you want the price to rise in the market. Let's lock down the amount of SBD in the prizes for a while, just like in Steem. Just get it available when power down is done. Same as steem power down. Thus, it becomes more equitable approach to the economy.

I look at this situation as an researcher of economy. And if this happens, the collapse of the economy will be inevitable. I hope I would be wrong.
@mepatriot(70)· 2644d
Yea...I'm that $5-10 a day content creator that is probably going elsewhere when that gets cut in half. I agree, too much too fast, and not enough on the BOT KILLING side of the equation.

ALSO, despite hundreds of us saying it, nothing is being done about the malicious ideologically-driven downvoting here. In fact, some ( like @bloom) appear to be here ONLY to downvote.
@solominer(82)· 2644d
Interesting to see how this affects me as a content creator.. though I do steemauto alot so maybe curation will be well worth the gains. Heard on #pypt

Posted using Partiko Android
@bearbear613(74)· 2644d
at least you know the problems and are attempting to address it. The upvoting yourself should be GONE. But then again farm bots easily replace that. Look at berniesanders and fulltimegeek with their bot armies upvoting themselves with 100 different staked accounts.
@lays(67)· 2644d
@timcliff why you want to increase curation reward who is earning curation reward do you know ? The bot owners are taking steem power from @freedom and they have not invested a single cent they are earning big curation already without investment so they are making free money they are selling it without worry how much steem is falling stop these bot system make something real reward system only humans should be allowed to sell upvotes
@lays(67)· 2644d
@timcliff i DO not understand the new HF 21 i believe that decreasing the author reward , decrease the interest of investors if authors are not going to earn on next HF21 why they will stay here
@bitcoinflood(80)· 2644d
hmmm how about we just roll out SMT already thank you
@gray00(58)· 2644d
Most of these issues are with the front ends and have nothing to do with the blockchain reward mechanics. I believe if we change the blockchain before changing the front ends it could severely hurt steem. You were the only person to warn of hf20. I would like to work together with you to test any changes to the blockchain before implementation. My community will also test this, they care deeply about steem's future and as they are creators who already rely on the blockchain for earnings.
@arcange(79)· 2644d
Congratulations @timcliff! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:
- Comments - Ranked 6 with 55 comments
@ocupation(71)· 2644d
This could be literally the end of STEEM... I think we should take it slow, rather than take almost everything from authors.
@numpypython(68)· 2644d
I don't think increasing the curation rewards percentage will improve the quality of the curating just as increasing the author rewards is unlikely to improve the quality of the posts.
@theformer(29)· 2644d
Good....
@edb(66)· 2644d
Did the witnesses decide to put the EIP in HF21? Or did @steemitblog change its post after you read it? It says the EIP might be included in a future fork.

Our hope with the EIP is just to highlight the conversation so that the Steem community has time to come to a consensus about whether they want these changes, and what they feel is the best timing as far as including the changes in a future hardfork.

Your argument here is: "We need to do something. And this is something."

You forget that it's a miracle that Steem sort of works.
@heymattsokol(69)· 2644d
As a small content creator I don't mind only earning a buck or two on average per post. I do it to grow my community, to share my work with the world, and for the future hopes of earning larger amounts.

It's going to get very frustrating though if the progress goes backwards as a result of seemingly arbitrary reward curve changes. I definitely don't hear anybody talking about author rewards being too high.
@shadowspub(77)· 2644d
I'm very much opposed to the move to increase curation at the expense of the authors. The curation is nothing more than a race to vote, not actual consuming content and moving the better content to more visibility.

I've already witnessed at least one larger stakeholder flat out saying that if the move is made, he will buy more Steem and run more curation BOTS. So how exactly is that getting more eyes on content? He's at least being honest about his intentions while pushing for the split.

The bidbots will continue to flourish and earn even more. So much for changing that behaviour.

Content creators see that cut in their share of rewards and will re-evaluate if their efforts are worthwhile on this platform. Some of the better ones will move on to other venues.

IF those proposing the changes are all that sure they are correct on the outcome, then move in smaller increments, like 65/35.

IF, and that is a huge IF, there is a corresponding increase in curation and upvoting of decent content, then the content creators will welcome a future change.

IF the projected changes don't happen, then the hit the content creators have taken is not as large.

A lot of content creators (especially the better ones) hold their earnings on the platform as an investment. If you hit those earnings hard enough for them to leave or cut back, that is stake not held.
@coinchaos(63)· 2644d
Good Luck with cleaning this place up. I am surprised the whales getting rekted did not change their behavior. You would think after upvoting yourself for 2 years and losing more and more money would have woken some of these bad users up. Sad.
@martie7(62)· 2644d

Moving from a linear rewards curve to a convergent linear rewards curve.

Bad idea. Whales becomes much stronger.

Increasing the percentage of rewards that are distributed to curators.

Bad idea. I can sell my upvotes if I need get more money. Curation rewards and bidbots is bad combination.

Create a separate “downvote pool.”

Not so bad. Flag wars is problem.

On current moment we necessary Resource Credit delegation tool for mass adoption.
@bil.prag(76)· 2644d
DO we want more new users on the chain? How will EIP affect new users experience on steem? with this new curve, who will vote on new user that will get only few votes, and how much SP should someone that wants to support new user have to get over a dust vote? 2000? 5000?
@cloudspyder(60)· 2644d
There is good and bad side found in the proposal, however it is just a proposal. There will be changes in the future... I didn't take side yet, but need to dig deeper and deeper.
@travellit(69)· 2644d
First of all, thanks for explaining this in Layman's terms - helped me a lot, cuz I've been hearing a lot about SPS and HF21. The technical side of this seems well reasoned and I do see how those involved to put this forward expect price - thus, investor, increase. But I would assume that you have a step-by-step plan in mind to attract new and retain old content creators. If so would you mind sharing this? As this will have a massive impact once the new EIP is in place. As this was left a bit unclear from the above. Also believe that this will be very time-sensitive as this blockchain cannot sustain its purpose without content creators. Because as a content creator I see it like this - if now I make 2 STEEM from my post - with the new EIP system ("more than 50% reduction") the price of STEEM must increase 100% (or more) just to make the same value as I did with the old system. And all this would be fine if we would know how do you plan to achieve this? What are the steps that you are going to take in order not to lose quality content creators (and attract new)? Cuz if there is no plan in place - this might hold a high level of risk.

FYI - We actually truly support this, cuz this shows that there is someone who cares enough to change something. These are just some questions that we would like to hear more about.
@geekpowered(70)· 2644d
I suppose it's interesting that this would be what they approve of the tons of possible "solutions" to the problems on Steem. I doubt this alone will come even close to fixing the issues. Perhaps it will make people feel like they can flag more readily though...which might be a problem for more than just the shit posters. How many of my freewrites deserve a flag or 10 in this new reality?

There's a real chance this could make things worse...and then how long will it take to address that? -.-
@vikisecrets(80)· 2644d
I have a different proposal to incentivize manual curation: add a small "fee" for delegations, i.e. decrease the value of delegated Steem Power a bit in comparison to native Steem Power, in order to incentivize manual/own curation, also outlined here: https://steemit.com/steemit/@vikisecrets/hf21-eip-solution-proposal-for-bid-bots-and-delegation-abuse-add-a-small-fee-for-delegations
@smooth(74)· 2645d

Authors will likely complain over what appears to be a more than 50% reduction in their rewards

Numerically speaking, changing the split from 75/25 to 50/50 is a 33% reduction to the author portion and if one factors in the budget redirection to SPS, it is a bit more, but still less than 50%.

To be more specific 75% of 75% is 56% of total inflation going to authors now (ignoring reverse auction, which increases this a bit). 50% of 65% is 32.5% (again ignoring reverse auction). So the net reduction is 42%.

This ignores changes in the economy and behavior and significantly overstates what authors are receiving now. Rewards from votes that the author pays for don't count.
@steem-ua(64)· 2645d
Hi @timcliff!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation! Your UA account score is currently 7.297 which ranks you at #50 across all Steem accounts. Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 320 contributions, your post is ranked at #7.

Evaluation of your UA score:
- Your follower network is great!
- The readers appreciate your great work!
- Great user engagement! You rock!
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
@kaylinart(76)· 2645d
I’m definitely happy about some kind of change! I’m really hoping for a good outcome, thanks for going over this! I had no idea a hardfork was coming

Posted using Partiko iOS
@gtg(76)· 2645d
Thank you for clear presentation of the ideas.

My point of view is exactly here:

HF21 in it's current form is not what I personally view as the best path forward. If it were 100% up to me, there are a lot of things I would do differently. Despite my objections over individual items in the proposal however, I do see the "package" of changes as a significant improvement from where we currently are.
@maxdevalue(69)· 2645d
Anything that will make Steem better is welcomed.

Posted using Partiko iOS
@por500bolos(68)· 2645d
Very well expressed and presented post my esteemed @timcliff.

Along this article you've been highly eloquent, balanced and assertive in your appreciations all over the content. And I reckon that the humble spices with which you've seasoned all your words, viewpoints and rationality behind your written dissertation here will help big time the steemian's willingness to accept these changes in a more positive way. :)

As an author, I've always been against any change, procedure, algorithm, formula and decision that is or will be detrimental to the already stunted rewards of the content authors. And so I've always expressed it multiple times throughout this place.

Therefore, the current 50/50 rule in exercise and the idea to take financial resources from the collective rewards pool to fund the SPS project, for me, it still taste a bit bitter. But yeah, I'm indeed an experimental beast. Since most of my life has gone by performing experiments everywhere.

The outcome of HF21 is impossible to predict.

Yep, in fact, no one could predict the possible outcomes. Given that everyone is looking the future through their very own version of crystal ball. And to top it off, all of us are looking 'the situation' thru our own crystal ball from many, diverse and multiple angles & perspectives that only respond to our own interests.

So, let's give time to the time. That without a doubt, there will be newer times in the near future to celebrate or to complain once again. };)

Cheers!!
@theguruasia(69)· 2645d
@timcliff, Very useful content! A lot of questions that I had before were solved! Thank you!

Cheers~
@enjar(79)· 2645d
I’m quite disappointed by the direction things are going but I've ignored it for a while and kept trying to move forward.

I don’t see a reason anymore to:
- Accept upvotes
- Create content with SEO in mind for search ranking
- Maintain an index a couple times a month
- Use a Steem platform with 15% benefactor cut to have basic functions Steemit is missing for content creators
- Promote that content outside of Steem
- Engage with other content creators about taking a look at the platform.
I already don’t turn a profit on my content so it’s not a big deal. I was never really here to make a ton of money. I just wanted a chance to break even on the cost of buy games and share my passion.

Content creators tend to have the smallest voice in stake but the loudest in traffic generator.
@onnovocks(50)· 2645d
Steemit is not getting the message: When people are not happy with the product or service, they leave and let their wallets do the talking.
@ddrfr33k(71)· 2645d
If we do implement SPS, might I make a suggestion? Let's allow multiple users to contribute funds to a proposal. Something crowdfunding oriented, you know? That way, a couple thousand Plankton could contribute 0.1 Steem, and it would add up. Probably won't be as much as a whale dropping 1k, but it would give Plankton the perception that they can help contribute towards something greater.

Posted using Partiko Android
@ddrfr33k(71)· 2645d
If we do implement SPS, might I make a suggestion? Let's allow multiple users to contribute funds to a proposal. Something crowdfunding oriented, you know? That way, a couple thousand Plankton could contribute 0.1 Steem, and it would add up. Probably won't be as much as a whale dropping 1k, but it would give Plankton the perception that they can help contribute towards something greater.

Posted using Partiko Android
@moeknows(67)· 2645d
Another aspect of the greater rewards towards curators is that they might be more inclined to upvote content they like.

Posted using Partiko Android
@thedegensloth(60)· 2645d
I'm all for the inflation paying the SPS system. It makes sense for now and if we don't like it we can fund the change for the SPS system with the system. We no longer will have to wait on things to get done just because steemit don't have enough hands or because of consensus issues. If its voted for and gets the funding its likely got consensus and its now a clear path to development.

As for the downvote pool, I'm down for it something people aren't seeing is it becomes more profitable to stop the abuse of the down vote pool. Its becomes profitable to create anti-abuse guilds, it might take 7 days for payouts but they would, in the long run, get more profit than bid bots can give especially is they offer a share in the sp powerdowns.

I have this odd feeling those downvotes will also be used on bot votes as they take about 30% of the pool now. Also with this new system, the bid bots would be getting more of the vote. It becomes more of a risk to invest in bidbots in the long run.

I personally have no issues with the bots, but people just sitting taking from the chain and creating no value are the reason our chain has sunk to its lowest point. So here is to the future.
@roger.remix(65)· 2645d
@timcliff thanks for the sum up and your thoughts on this! I agree in many points. The SPS can really be beneficial to boost the needed business development and marketing aspect - if designed & marketed properly itself. The EIP proposed model is a double edged sword. It's easier to change bot's behaviours than human's. But the new split at least incentives the majority to change theirs. So it's in our hands 😀

Posted using Partiko Android
@jackmiller(68)· 2645d
Well, I'm glad to have read it here and not elsewhere.

At least I know that you try and say it as it is in the most diplomatic way possible.

Personally, I am all for a % of the funds from the so called "rewards pool" along with the funds from the upvotes that goes back into the kitty be allocated to this investing into the enhancement of Steem.

I guess this is as good a place as any to voice my personal view on this.

TY mate.

Cheers.
@whatsup(76)· 2645d
Thank you very much tim, for a balanced thoughtful presentation of the ideas.

The amount of funding if the SPS is funded by inflation is also an important part.

While I am not strongly opposed to the bucket of changes, and can't support them until I hear how some of the details are worked out.

I much appreciate and honest break down of the issues.

Very dangerous ground in my opinion to drop them both at once and try to figure out which changes are having which impact.

Also, no one outside cares about this. Edited to add: Please tell me how other chains you are invested in handle their specific inflation POS or POW. (It's not the point, the point is most people don't know and don't care enough to have them memorized.
@sepracore(64)· 2645d
One of your best counterpoints to those against the hardfork changes is ... it isn’t like it is working now! We need something different. I agree the hardfork is unlikely the perfect package but it is possibly better than what we have now and at worst it will just be more of the same. I am not exactly a fan of the mentality of “let’s just try it and see what happens” but at the same time we are just bleeding a slow death so let’s change it up. If it horrific, we can always go back or try something else.

My primary concern with the hardfork is getting proper funding for the Steem proposal system. We need that funded. I am ok with pulling it from inflation. We have to have it to stay competitive and keep this chain advancing, especially as other chains come along. So critical. How would you like to see the SPS funded?
@xavinovilla(41)· 2645d
https://busy.org/@xavinovilla/chibolos-de-hoy-en-dia-concejos-que-hacer-antes-de-ir-al-colegio
@hf20(41)· 2645d
did I teach enough lessons for the next to go better?

Overview

Steem Proposal System (SPS)

Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP)

Opinions on HF21

Thought process behind the changes

The Goal

My Thoughts

Comments · 131

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

Hi @timcliff!

Evaluation of your UA score:

More from @timcliff