Honest question as to why new tokens are all implementing a brand new 50/50 split idea that hasn't even been tested thoroughly by tokens like palnet and hasn't been implemented by steem yet for a large scale test... yet everyone is heading that direction.
STEEM REASONING
... i feel like a lot of the reasoning behind Steem blokchain switching to 50/50 split in the upcoming HF21 is a commentary about Vote buying.
STEEM ENGINE TOKENS ARE DIFFERENT
However Steem-engine tokens that use SCOT distribution system are mostly all using 50/50 systems already
However Scot systems also have the ability to moderate their communities... in fact many of them set aside large pools used to moderate. Thus if they have an issue with vote buying they could do something about it if they want and don't have to depend on 50/50 splits.
It's also a little disingenuous looking when token creators give themselves massive amounts of free tokens seeming to solidify that they will continue to stay at the top. I'm not saying that should fully be a reason against... it just kind of looks bad since it is not value on top of tokens purchased or earned... it's high inflation on free/easy money.
MY QUESTION
- I would like to ask why these token creators AND the users are ok with and or prefer the 50/50 split.
- Am I missing something?
The best argument is that token creators are worried that users will dump these freely gotten tokens so a 50/50 split will help them value the tokens more? Do we know if this is working out well? Do we know if this will work better than 75/25?
Again my assumption takes into account that steem-engine tokens can and do use moderation abilities that can be hard-coded into the scot distribution system as well as moderation accounts with large amounts of voting power.
THE EXCEPTIONS
SteemAce is doing 60/40 i'd love to know why they went that direction? And why they didn't go further in that direction?
Another exception: SteemCoinpan is 45/55 giving the holder more of the cut for voting.
Why didn't some tokens go 40/60 if the reasoning is to incentivise people to hold their tokens and vote more. Why didn't they go further? @dtube is going 0/100 for example
Coincreative is 60/40
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
OK ... and why?
Why did they not go 50/50 and why not 75/25?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's midway between 75 and 50. Give more incentive to curate (40), while keeping more to the authors (60).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
50/50 is not about vote-buying, nor is the curve. It's about reducing spam and abuse. I have seen many who felt the curve was to reduce bid bot use, but in fact, it will likely do the opposite.
50/50's main purpose is to encourage organic voting over just throwing votes on spam to get rewarded. Free downvotes paired 50/50 is what helps enforce this.
It also levels the playing field so curators feel rewarded and it is a more valuable activity.
In general, authors are up in arms and feel this is an attack on them but in the end, if it works well it should result in similar or better rewards providing behavior changes and there is enough flagging to reduce the rewards on garbage.
It will take time for these effects to be noticed.
Why are tribes using it?
Because Steem will, it is less friction if you match them together. Anything less than 50/50 (i.e 60/40) is likely not enough of a difference to see the behavior changes.
I can't speak for all tribes and their reasoning, I can only guess and tell you mine.
Some believe in 50/50, some are just using it because Steem will go in that direction, I suspect some are doing just because PAL did.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
" I suspect some are doing just because PAL did."
I think that is probably the case; people attempting to emulate PAL.
Time will tell if it is an improvement.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We realized that a lot of Scot tribes just used 50/50 and while that might work out perfectly, we felt like it's a bit too much for curators.
If we look at a system with 25% for curators, that's just not enough. You want a platform where curators are willing to vote for good content. Organic voting is the foundation pillar. If there is no organic voting, the platform is doomed.
So with that in mind you need at least 35% for curators in our opinion.
We dediced for 40%, because we think that might be enough for curators to be motivated for a lot of organic voting. Particularly in the early times, where a lot of organic voting is done by the team, more is not needed.
And for creators, 60% is a big number to be motivated to create high quality content.
Of course it's all a big test, nobody knows the perfect numbers yet. Most probably there are even multiple different perfect numbers, depending on the topic of the community.
We will monitor the effect of 60/40 on our community. It will take its time but if we realize it's not perfect, we can always change the numbers a tiny bit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
More curation rewards -> more incentive to buy/hold those tokens?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Has this actually held true? How do we know this is the case?
I think we all feel like it is the case (including me) but do we know for sure?
I think the biggest point is will this be better for the economy than the potential motivation for content creators? And how do we know?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
TRIPLE A is 40/60
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
OK ... and why?
Why did they not go 50/50 and why not 25/75?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
SCT is actually 45% author, 45% curators and 10% beneficiaries
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
OK... and why?
Why did they still split with an equal portion?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Steemace is 60/40
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes as you see in the post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i feel that it is just because there must be a number :D
i tried to understand what dtube is doing and how creators are earning (except by their own vote) but i don't have any idea.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @jarvie!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.404 which ranks you at #196 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 1 places in the last three days (old rank 195).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 164 contributions, your post is ranked at #1. Congratulations!
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dear @jarvie
I've been wondering about it for quite some time already. I understand that rewarding stakeholders with such a huge % of reward pool is the best way of encouraging people to purchase and hold the token. So it's a great insentive for investors.
However I'm not sure if in long run this is going to work out well as I expect that most main stakeholders will be dumping their large chunk of rewards once userbase will grow and lack of liquidity won't be a problem.
Vote buying on Steemit will most likely not stop. Adjusting bots is all that will have to be done.
I agree. It does raise red flags and it makes it harder to have trust towards those projects.
Yours
Piotr
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
While giving curators a bigger cut approximate incentives for holding stake, it also places more responsibilities on the community to curate good content.
The last thing you need is a community where people are blindly curating.
It's all an experiment. I think it's healthy people are testing stuff out.
The 50/50 is probably just to see if HF21 would destroy the ecosystem.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am for sure grateful for their experiments of 50/50
However when all the tokens seem to go that direction I start to wonder what they're seeing.
I'm worried they're thinking about the money they're freely giving out (including to themselves) and making sure they have a method to keep enriching themselves. But that's an obviously pessimistic view.
More so i'm worried they're pessimistically viewing their own system and that people won't value the tokens that were not earned and also has no utility. Seems like utility and effort can do the same to increase value. As well as a strong effort to bring in new users or users who want to impact that community with a large vote.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And really, what is the correct incentive in terms of split?
Personally, I think each community should be able to change that spread as needed. Not sure if it's currently possible.
As for pessimism, I don't think so. I have decided to associate myself with communities I'm interested in, as well as taking moderation seriously. The communities that don't follow their own rules and visions, or the lack thereof, are destined to fail. Those who do may stand a chance to shine after the test of time.
On a side note, I don't think this should be tagged #stem or #steemace. Just saying.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit