Actually Curie currently controls less than 2% of the reward pool, so that would be a bad bet for you :) Compare that to the top 5 bid bots who control almost 20%. Here is another way to look at it, although obviously it isn't going to make a difference as you have already made up your mind to believe something that is not true. This is the percent of all authors in given REP bands who have received a Curie upvote in their time on Steem. Still want to say that Curie is supporting a "select few"? By the time you get into the REP ranges that mean an account has been posting for a little while and is not a spam account, Curie has supported a huge chunk of the accounts.
RE: The most common criticism I hear about Curie is...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The most common criticism I hear about Curie is...
You are right, carl, i have made my mind up about ganging up to increase rewards, msp is just as bad, if not worse.
Im not sure that you see my perspective on the matter.
The way i see it, and have from the beginning, is that i am excluded from getting a curie vote by design, they dont want to support my content, but they dont mind making the votes i do get smaller by concentrating sp on their endeavor.
Same as the msp.
If they were voting as individuals that would be one thing, but to advocate a group identity in the pursuit of greater rewards disadvantages everybody that doesnt get their votes, including the dupes that join but dont get votes, either.
Your graph clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of authors dont benefit from curie's gang.
Yet, all rewards are diminished by their consolidating influence.
How many more authors would benefit if, instead of following the group, those voters found their own content to vote rather than that championed by curie?
What your graph shows me is that curie is not as successful at forcing their idea of good content on the rest of us as they would like.
Im proudly part of the 45% that got to rep 65 without being a milquetoast suck up.
Those with enough sp to control who does, and doesnt, get rewards here have been real clear about their goals on what content they want to be seen, thank god they are failing to silence all disenting opinions.
To further clarify my position, i am a fan of the whale experiment, i think the largest accounts should be viewed as speculators, and excluded from the pool until the pool grows large enough to accomodate them.
Doing this gives the little accounts a chance to grow without whales sucking all the rewards to themselves.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, I see your point - I was just taking exception to the particular verbiage of select "few". I don't think by any definition of the word "few" it is accurate. BTW thanks for taking the time to respond intelligently, articulately, and without devolving into name calling/insulting. I personally am not in favor of silencing dissenting opinions, it is why I gave your initial comment my 100% upvote (not that my upvote is huge or anything) and raised its visibility in the comment thread. I would much rather have a conversation and try to understand opposing viewpoints, and I appreciate that you were willing to indulge me in that.
I am 100% in favor of what you are saying about whales being excluded from the pool. You may not be aware, but the initial goal of Curie was to have phased itself out of existence by now. The idea was to help diversify the reward pool, redistribute wealth (SP) to smaller accounts, and once Curie was not as relevant to shutter operations. The funny thing is that while Curie's influence on the reward pool has indeed been steadily shrinking, it is not because the wealth is better distributed now than it used to be. Quite the opposite. The rise of bid bots / vote selling is serving to further concentrate the wealth in the pockets of the largest accounts, dominating an ever increasing % of the vote pool, and in my own opinion, making Curie more indispensable than ever.
One thing I should mention - I know you have been on platform for a while, and typically when I run into people who share this view of Curie they have been on platform for a while. I bring this up because your point about the Curie vote being designed to exclude you (and by extension, other authors who share similar views) by intention used to have a much more solid basis in fact. Not sure if you are aware, but back in September of last year Curie diversified operations considerably by reserving a large chunk of its total vote power to support interest and regional specific "sub-communities", which do NOT operate by the core Curie guidelines. The reason there is such vote diversity as I highlighted in the first charts I shared, and the reason why Curie is now reaching a greater % of authors than its % influence on the reward pool, is precisely because of this. "Core" Curie operations, meaning the posts submitted by Curie curators for review by Curie reviewers, and which the Curie guidelines apply to, are actually now a very small % of the total outgoing vote. Each week the number of outgoing votes from this core operation is typically in the 100-150 vote range, while total outgoing votes is in the 1000-1200 range.
I am not going to pretend that there are no issues with the Curie supported sub-communities either, but the entire point of going this route was so Curie would reach a much more diverse set of authors that would never be reached by core Curie operations. We are in the middle of conducting an audit on all the supported Curie sub-communities and have uncovered some abuse of the vote follow, so again, not going to claim this is a perfect system. But given your core objections to Curie, hopefully you can see that this is a huge step in the direction you are wanting to see. These are much smaller votes, and are distributed much more broadly, and are not beholden to the Curie guidelines. The sub-community votes are cast by independent curation teams which are not Curie operators.
Anyway - thanks for humoring me and I appreciate the back and forth. You do good things for this platform and I appreciate it. Cheers - Carl
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Carl, if concentrating real world wealth in the hands of the few is defined by 1%, increasing that threshold to 2% does not constitute reaching the many.
Out of ~65k authors, reaching 45k would be many.
I have seen evidence that your group isnt totally evil, not like stinc, but it still remains an issue if you work counter to the interests of the little guys.
Sure, your outreach into the subcommunities does broaden reach, but still the favored get rewarded much more than the dissenters.
If somebody really wants to help the minnows, take sp out of the pool.
Let it sit idle, and let the comunity grow with out the interests of the rich having primacy.
When folks start buying $10 worth of steem each week, we will know our success.
As long as folks are afraid to speak freely, are not actively encouraged in their dissent the same way conformity is rewarded, we will only know failure, at some point.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm a curator for the music sub-community and I can assure you, in our curation we don't have limitations to eg free speech; We also try to give our support to an as wide as possible audience. Sure, some to more users never received a vote from our sub-curie team due to various reasons including spamming, copy/paste. Those authors will have to up their game to be considered. Others simply try to take an easy ride like sharing an old music production from some other social media through more or less a link drop to the Steem blockchain. Quite a few do that. I have no idea how bog this group is, but my gut feel (based on what I see daily) is this can easily be in double digit percentages. This basically means the effective reach of Curie as given by @carlgnash suddenly becomes a lot bigger. Another thing not mentioned in the interaction here is the rewardpool rape by those who users who spend all their SP to vote for themselves. Together with the bid bots, this immensive self voting (openly or hidden through a range of different accounts, or side deals outside the Steem blockchain) is maybe by far the largest issue of our entire community.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with you, there are bigger issues than curation cults rewarding their favorites.
I dont vote copy pasta, either.
Still, out of 65k daily authors, if you want to characterize your impact as broad, you are gonna have to reach into the double digit percentages.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Double digits would be great to reach; Agree to that. In music on the Steem blockchain, I see many double digit percentages of low to no value posts. Although I don't have numbers/stats, I can savely say we have a wide reach across valuable written posts about music; our focus since music productions are already covered by dsounds, dtube and the likes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit