Changing the Curation system - Might be wise, but we need to be careful!steemCreated with Sketch.

in hive-139293 •  4 years ago 

I just read through the following post written by @steemingcurators, in which he describes why it might be needed to make some changes to the curation system on Steemit. Currently, it is quite hard to understand and predict what your curation awards will be like, and creating one constant award system would make it easier to understand and to predict.

Two people with 1000 SP who vote 10x times a day with full power should in this system receive exactly the same amount of curation rewards, no matter what posts they voted for and when they voted for the posts. Today, it is very different.

When they introduced the current curation reward system, it felt like a nightmare!

I remember when the current curation system was introduced, it felt like a nightmare to me. The feeling that 50% of your earning is spread out to curators didn't feel fair. But, I quickly learned to live with that, and now I have gotten used to the current curation system. But, would it need some changes? It might be, but I believe we need to be careful at the same time.

Changing curation system on steem.png

I am very happy about the fact that Steemingcurators is passionate about the platform, that he raises questions, and that he actually works to see it go in the best possible direction. So, no matter if I agree or not, I am really grateful for that, and we would need way more people using time, energy, creativity, and mindpower to send this platform to the moon!*

Some of the dangers with a "flat" curation system!

If it doesn't matter who you vote for or when you vote, you will get the same curation fee no matter what. So, I can vote for 10 junk posts and still receive the same as if I would vote for a fantastic posts that gets a lot of attention and so. This raises a few question to me:

  • This makes self-voting much more lucrative!
    What do I mean? If I will get exactly the same award, no matter what, then I might vote for own posts all the time, since it at least ensures me a better income. Today, however, voting for other posts that I believe will be upvoted and get some attention, might bring a higher reward.

  • It doesn't make curating interesting.
    Today, many of the most passionate curators for the big communities are out there looking for material several hours per day. They often place a vote with their own user first, and then they set off the curation trail. These pioneers will lose much of their motivation if they lose the curation reward "bonus!" And so will I, because I will not feel the need to vote for quality content.

A waste of time.png

Some of the positives with a "flat" curation system

Of course, I do see some of the positives as well.

  • No more voting for idiotic posts, simply because of the curation reward.
    There are so many people voting for idiotic posts and users, simply because they receive upvotes from users with lots of SP. As a result, they earn more than 100 USD per post, simply because users vote for them quickly, only to enjoy the high curation rewards coming later due to the number and value of the upvotes that will come later. And to be honest, often the quality of these posts are really terrible.

This is a weakness to the system, and it only makes sure that the rich get even richer, because other people want to get rich through the curation system.

  • Easy to explain and share with people.
    We all love to enjoy high rate of interest on our investments. If it would go flat, we could tell people who power up their Steem and actually vote, that it would give them a yearly % return. This would make it interesting for investors as it could be easily explained.

Fixed curation system.png

Conclusion?

I see quite a lot of positives in changing the system, but I would say that the negatives are absolutely present, especially the fact that it would make the curating work so much "boring" and less inspiring. It would also make it worse to run curation trails, because it wouldn't be worth the work and the mess.

I would also like to say that Steem, in its present state, is awesome with the fact that it actually has curation rewards for everyone. What do I mean? Even if I vote for a post, and I am the only person voting for that post, I will still get a reward. If I am the last person in a curation trail voting for a post, I will not get as much as the first person, but I will still get a reward.

In other words, just voting is way better than nothing, and it will give you a better ROI in itself than most other platforms in the world is able to give you, even the present state.

Let's keep the discussion going and let us make Steem great again (even though I already find it to be quite awesome)!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
Loading...

Cierto la metodología de sistema de curación, esta distorsionada en su intención de apoyar los contenidos de valor, apoyar a los que están empezando a elaborar post, y te apoyo en colocar a Steem en la mejor plataforma.

I am really happy to have you around, but if you can write in English, that would be the best. However, I used Google translate to understand this, so I think I got to essence of your comment no matter what...

"True, the curation system methodology is distorted in its intention to support valuable content, support those who are beginning to write a post, and I support you in placing Steem on the best platform."

A si es y estoy con ustedes para Steem siempre sea la mejor comunidad

Ohh wauuw thanks for the compliments first of all. We need more people like you chilling Steem. Awesome that Steemit highlighted you on Twitter btw!

  1. Yes, people can self-vote for sure. But that would mean he would need to buy STEEM of the market to make it worth it. + He will likely not get any other votes and thus has to keep making a ton of posts (or spam but then he risks to get flagged as our users are getting more passionate by the day)

  2. What prevents users from self-voting if we don't change? Are there no self-voters today? So with or without a change of code, that stays the same. The only difference is, if we change to non-time based curation, that users will not vote for people like "the famous chartist" anymore.
    There are chances of course that people will still just login once a day and vote for the first posts they encounter. (This will redistribute the rewards evenly so I don't see a problem in that)

  3. Communities who rely on curation trails have an even bigger incentive as they all want the extra users and VP to follow their trail. Curation trails often have a rule that they vote for their curators once a day. So imo it is even more lucrative to have a curation trail with a massive following. The game just changes. Hopefully, users follow trails so their votes do not go to waste. OR just vote manually if they have time, interest.

Thanks so much for this post!

Wow, I didn't even now that Steemit shared my article on Twitter, but checked it out, and truly, it is there. That is awesome! Thanks for letting me now!

I do understand your upvoting problem, I just see it as getting more tempting as one get more power. For those whose upvote is worth nothing, not so interesting, but it might make it more tempting for whales to vote for own content or create tons of users and just vote for their crappy content (maybe)!

I get the point with the curation trails, so you might be true, but I also know that not all curation trails work that way. Of course, making the rewards equal, would make it easier to join a curation trail, simply because it would still give you the same benefit of upvoting, and it would make it an easier way to earn passive income. However, I fear the curation part would get weaker, simply because it wouldn't be so inspiring anymore to actually look for that content worth curating.

I will have to think more about it, it is absolutely worth thinking about!

Hi,

it actually is mindblowing to me that whales are the ones that game the system the most. Short term thinking and a quick ROI without thinking at potential future value. You would think that they benefit from a stable high price but nope. Maybe and hopefully we can get the message to the right people. We just need to speak up. I am not gonna do nothing.

It is never gaming proof, a DPOS is not IMO. What we can do it try to make it less lucrative and push the behavior we want down their throat.

Thanks!

It's sad to see that you (@steemingcurators) are praising people who share your view, and are a bit rude and unpleasent with comments to those (like myself) who shared feedback with didn't go along with your narrative .... :(

I reacted the same way as you did sir. Comments, like: How long have you even be around, You didn't do your homework, you got no clue, etc.. Without adding any value yourself is rude as well. It is your style of communicating so I am not going to bitch about it. But please.

It is easy to say: I do not like the idea. Or to come with facts that other people present you. Or even worse, do nothing and just to leave it at it is. It's not that others, who clearly did not have the best intentions tell me that this is the best solution, that I just swallow that and move on.

I am praising people who show me respect, not the idea. You can read all comments and check if my behavior towards others match with how they communicate or present themselves. I opened a discussion, and the blanks were for you guys to fill in. I could have done it myself but then its a monologue and not a discussion. For you, that was the trigger to leash out or to talk denigrating.

Thanks for your comments!

A "NEW" Investor sees reduced curation and 13 week powerdown. Then sees STEEM with no reduced curation & 4 week powerdown.

Which platform would be the obvious choice?

Wonder why already the price of STEEM is higher than HIVE? When STEEM made the 4 week powerdown, it became more "attractive" and less restrictive vs HIVE.

hi

Some of the dangers with a "flat" curation system!

You didn't seem to even mention the biggest danger of all - raise of bidbots and people buying their votes, the way it has been done in the past.

Could you perhaps let us know, if you don't think this problem would re-appear?

Post resteemed

Yes Piotr, you mentioned that in your other comment! Let's see what others bring up to this discussion. Interesting stuff