RE: Programming Diary #29: Imagining the "value per feed" curation model

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Programming Diary #29: Imagining the "value per feed" curation model

in hive-151113 •  yesterday 

And since the current vote-bot business models are already very efficient at extracting a big chunk of value from the rewards pool I'm skeptical you can outgrow them, even if you figure out a more virtuous model.

No doubt that it's a heavy lift, and it won't be me. I have no plans to run any paid voting services. But I have a hard time believing that someone with the right funding and motivations couldn't come up with a solution that wouldn't depend on clients to continuously cannibalize their own holdings. I'm just trying to imagine what a better solution might look like.

Certainly, there is no perfect answer, but I think that improvement is always possible.

Relative to other internet sites I don't think there are a lot of people here, so there's not enough eyeballs to sell.

Yeah, I agree with this. I'm imagining that content creators would be motivated to grow their audience by ambitiously promoting their own blogs outside the Steem ecosystem, just like they do for other platforms.

There's another wildcard in the mix, too. In about 1-2 years, we start to expect an increasingly sharper decline in creation of new STEEM per day. I'm not sure at all what that will mean for usage & ROI for the voting services (or organic usage, for that matter). It's going to be different from anything that we've seen in the past.

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:  

But I have a hard time believing that someone with the right funding and motivations couldn't come up with a solution that wouldn't depend on clients to continuously cannibalize their own holdings.

I don't find it hard to imagine that systems can get stuck in tragedy-of-the-commons traps where it becomes hard or impossible for individual actors to fix things. I'm not sure there's a person on the planet who has the resources to implement changes who would have the motivation "fix the Steem ecosystem". Why would they? They could probably do more good more profitably somewhere else.

I think that improvement is always possible.

I think improvement is possible, but you might be working on "let's invent a slightly-less-unhealthy soda for people to drink" when "drink water instead" is categorically better for that goal.

There's another wildcard in the mix, too. In about 1-2 years, we start to expect an increasingly sharper decline in creation of new STEEM per day.

I'm guessing it won't matter, subtle macro effects tend to be small so I think other factors will tend to dominate.