As far as voting for new authors and new smaller users, the current setup actually discourages that as you need to get your vote over $4 or so to even reach a linear vote. It actually disincentivizes voting small users. A prime example of how worrying about abuse is hurting growth.
RE: Response to Pharesim's Downvote Propaganda.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Response to Pharesim's Downvote Propaganda.
Exactly, but it's not worrying about abuse that impelled HF21. It's encouraging profiteering, and pleb newbs have no stake to plunder, so are excluded from benefitting from curation post HF21. It's not an example of any consideration of increasing user onboarding and retention. It's simply pretending Steem has any value without a market to create that value. Profiteers are extracting more and more Steem by stake weighting as it becomes worth less and less as the market for it contracts.
It is so obvious to me that I am half convinced it's deliberate. Exchanges are dropping Steem. How long can this go on before Steem and Golos are entombed side by side in the dustbin of history, has beens in the contest for market share?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If new users want to earn more rewards, they simply buy more stake, simple as that. Otherwise others on the site can feel free to tip them for their work if they feel it is worthy of such.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Try to advertise Steem to potential markets with such a recommendation, and watch zero people sign up. It's ridiculous, and Steem will fail if that's the best you've got. It was the opposite offer, that people could sign up for free and gain Steem through upvotes of their content, that drew folks here.
When it was proved to be inaccurate, and that whales got most of the rewards, they left. For most people the necessary funds to buy enough Steem to become a whale are completely out of reach. How much more rewards could they expect with what they can pry from their paychecks, already overspent by most people today?
They didn't come here to spend their money. They came to earn it. It's bizarre to pretend this isn't the case, and hallucinatory to actually believe what you are saying. As to the rewards that actually exist on Steem, they are negligible because of profiteering, and worse after HF21 due to the quasi-exponential curve that makes smaller votes insignificant.
If those rewards weren't being extracted by whales stake weighting, were profiteering not reducing all content creators to ~10% of rewards PRIOR to HF21, some folks would stay and market Steem to others with their posts. This happened back in the day. As increasing profiteering has continued to reduce the rewards of such content creators, that useful marketing work, and the market they constituted, has increasingly shrunk and contracted.
You don't want to acknowedge these facts, so you do not. It doesn't matter that they're demonstrable and real. You just don't want it to be that way, so you'll keep pretending it's not.
Until you acknowledge that, we're done talking.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Please tell me how a model where people show up to get paid is sustainable? People who invest nothing, net earn rewards are the first in line to sell, that's not a sustainable model.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is demonstrable that it is the ninjaminers that sell, that profiteers sell, and that new users with growing accounts do not. Why do you state the opposite? Provide evidence of your claim, because I know it to be false and believe you do too, confirming my belief you are simply trolling.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit