Now that we have stabilized the STEEM inflation rate we would like to start the discussion on growing the reach of Steem into more websites. Steem was created to be a decentralized content platform that would maximize the distribution and network effect of its cryptocurrencies (STEEM and SBD). Part of being decentralized is encouraging many independent websites and/or competitors to hosting Steem content (such as steemd.com, busy.org, and mobile apps).
Core Ideas
Currently, there’s a “put it on Steem and only on Steem” feeling, however, we believe we can structure the blockchain incentives to make every content site across the internet desire to integrate with Steem. Bloggers shouldn’t have to choose between Steem and their current platform. Steem should be a no-cost, potentially revenue generating, addition to any blog. Developers and service providers should be able to make money providing users access to the Steem blockchain.
Encourage Competing Websites
All businesses depend upon a revenue stream to stay in business. Someone looking to create a competitor to steemit.com must have a solid business model to justify the expense in hiring developers to build, deploy, and market an alternative. We would like to propose a very simple change that would enable a large number of businesses to flourish.
Every post will be able to specify how it’s rewards are divided up among up to 5 different accounts. When you use a service provider to make a post, they can automatically construct the transaction to pay a commission. If you use steemit.com, then x% will go to the author and the rest will go to Steemit, Inc. Steemit, Inc will take a percentage so that competitors have an opportunity to compete on price (or charge the same). The funds we receive will be redirected into a community driven development fund that can help bootstrap new features and services.
Embedded Comments
Many popular websites choose to use 3rd party providers, like Disqus, for hosting comments. With the new commission feature, these websites could embed Steem comments and collect a percentage of every comment reward.
There would be two options for embedding comments:
- Host Steem comments directly
- Use a 3rd party provider like busy.org or steemit.com to serve comments
When a user makes a comment the payout will get split 3 ways depending upon which interface they use to construct the comment.
- Author
- Domain (e.g. Infowars, Zerohedge, etc)
- Service Provider (e.g Disqus, busy.org or steemit.com)
Segregated Reward Funds
Right now all content shares a common reward pool proportional to the total votes it receives. Top level posts see and receive an order of magnitude more attention than comments. This significantly dilutes the potential payout for comments.
Top level posts are also restricted to “original content” and people who post links to other blogs don’t get the same kind of rewards. We want to encourage every blogger out there to submit their blogs to Steem and to embed a Steem comment section on their blog.
If we are going to have these different kinds of content, then we need some means of normalizing rewards among the different types. To achieve this we would allocate X% to original content, Y% to link sharing with brief summary, and Z% to comments such that X+Y+Z equals the current reward fund.
By segregating the funds links are paid out relative to other links, while comments are paid out relative to other comments and blogs to other blogs. This in turn should increase the total percentage of the pie paid to comments and links without encouraging comment or link spam. By increasing rewards for participation in discussion and for submitting links to be discussed, we increase the incentives for bloggers to integrate Steem with their existing blog. We also increase opportunities for normal people (non-bloggers) to participate in the platform through link sharing and commenting.
Today bloggers have many reasons to say no to Steem. With these proposed changes, every blogger would have a huge incentive to add Steem comments to their blog while also submitting a link to their blog to Steem.
Different Curation Rewards for Different Content Types
Comments should not have curation rewards because those who are reading have already found the discussion by other means. Links should not have extremely high author rewards because they are almost entirely requests for curation. Blogs should have very high author rewards and lower curation rewards.
You can see how different content requires different division of rewards to properly handle its unique properties.
Feedback Wanted
The upgrades described above are presented for community discussion only and not as a final decision. Please let us know what you think and how we can make Steem more appealing as a platform for developers, bloggers, and discussions about content.
The % cut idea is a good one for other Steem front-end sites that could provide other types of context, interface, and content arrangement that would be more valuable for certain uses. Or to encourage a design that directly competes with Steemit but has alternative design and perhaps a better post editor.
I disagree that steemit.com should have a mandatory cut as well. Though what would be interesting to see is an optional cut to fund a community fund, whether for development or other purposes. Posts with that option chosen could have some small unobtrusive indicator of that. Gamify it a little.
However, the @steemit account has plenty of funds to provide development incentives, why would Steemit need to skim the posting reward pool for such a thing?
By the way, Golos has started an initiative to encourage differing front ends for the same reasons in my first sentence. http://blogchain.golos.io/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
totally agree with you. @steemitblog call it what you want, you want to "tax" USERS.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We don't want tax, which is why we would direct it to 3rd party dev directed by community. We could also burn it or add it to reward pool.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am cool with that as long as the dev is not part of steemit inc team and is chosen by the community. Nothing against the current devs of steemit inc. I know a few and they are quite good.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
After considering it more, and reading this comment, I realized that it's not about where the STEEM ends up at all. Just that it's not going to a post author. So that someone wouldn't feel like they were at a disadvantage for using a different front end service that rightfully charged a cut to make revenue from their creation. If there is no alternative solution, it may be necessary.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Glad you understand where we were coming from.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't agree with this. The problem is that it directly disadvantages voting on comments. I'm currently donating some of my vote power to an initiative with a mission to vote on comments. I fully expect that curation rewards on comments will (usually) be less than those on posts (since rewards are typically lower), so there is some opportunity cost here, but I don't expect the rewards to be zero, and if they were I would be less likely to allow my vote power to be used on comments.
Secondarily, it isn't necessarily true that curating good comments doesn't require significant effort nor add significant value. Consider very active comment streams with thousands of comments or more (for example on reddit it not uncommon that a single post generates far more comments than there are recent posts in the same sub). Voting up the most insightful, entertaining, etc. comments can be both non-trivial effort and add a lot of value.
I'm not sure about the ideas for segregating of content types. It seems rather arbitrary and static. What about video sharing, photo sharing, microblogging, etc.? The point being there are many different types of content (including some not yet invented) and even if the splits are open to witness vote, the categories in this proposal seem hard coded and arbitrary. I'd prefer to see something where rewards flow dynamically to whatever content types generate the most user engagement. I don't have a specific proposal for that however.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think it actually requires more effort and work to curate comments. I think the rewards should be kept. It may not be an incentive right now but in the future with a higher Steem price it will become more relevant. The discussion is just as important as the posts and curation should be encouraged. I like the other ideas though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree that curation rewards for comments should remain.
Regarding the segregation of content types, I think it could make sense to separate reward streams for top-level posts versus comments since there is a distinction made between the two at the blockchain level (the payout times for comments is entirely driven by the payout time for the root post). So this blockchain difference means that comments (posts with depth level greater than 0) should really just be used as commentary on top-level posts rather than other purposes, and so their visibility is expected to be very different than top-level posts that it can perhaps justify a segregated reward stream. (By the way, this proposed hard fork is a good time to finally get rid of the 4 post limit on full payouts. Then posts can be used for microblogging without limitations, and we don't need hacks like using comments on unrelated root posts for microblogs.)
But like you, I don't really like further hard-coded segregation of content types, such as the one between "original content" posts and "link" posts. I think those should just come from the same reward stream. However, I do see value in different types of content having a different percentage of the payout allocated to the post going to author rewards versus curation rewards. People are willing to reward the author of original content more than just a shared link. In fact, in the case of the shared link, the author of the post is really more like just another curator, so perhaps what would be ideal is to distribute all (or nearly all) of the payout to the curators for shared link posts (and the author would of course be the first curator). For original content, the author deserves a large fraction of the payout, but they should still give some fraction of it to curators to keep sufficient motivation for curators to upvote the post in the first place.
So, I suggest that the only segregation of reward streams be between posts versus comments, but to furthermore allow the author of a post/comment to specify the percentage of the payout that goes to the author (with a hardcoded maximum allowable percentage of say 80%) and the rest going to the curators. This percentage would be visible on the post so that it can inform the decision making of curators. And once again, get rid of the 4 post limit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This does not make a lot of sense to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.
I somewhat like the idea of allowing a variable split, except for the issue of cognitive load. Display of it should probably be some sort of advanced/optional feature. People who are just voting for what they like and not trying to be professional curators should not be pressured to care about curation reward details with visual clutter. Either way that's not a blockchain issue though.
Absolutely 1000% agree with getting rid of the 4 post limit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My mistake. I meant to write 80% (as in minimum 20% goes to curators). I fixed my post now. Does it make sense now?
Yes, I worry about the cognitive load too. Perhaps displaying it by default isn't so important because of the minimum going to the curators. Perhaps by default it could just use some icon to indicate whether: curators get the hardcoded minimum percentage of payout for this post; curators get 100% of the payout for this post; or, custom payout for curators (hover over icon to see detailed percentage).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think I like the idea of 3 separated pool rewards. At least 2 separated pool for posts and comments the way @arhag propose really seems to make a lot of sense. I'll be awaiting more tinkering, details and comments to make a better opinion of those proposals.
Also I'm not sure I understand the statement below. If comments don't have curation rewards then what will be the incentives to vote for those comments?
What @smooth said is a no brainer in my opinion.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@smooth the problem that voting on comments dilutes your voting power can be solved through using Segregated voting power for each category per user.
Generally i love the idea of having segregated reward funds. Because this could evolve to a kind of virtual nation / federation.
Which categories are used and their percentage of the the reward funds should not be set in stone. Instead users should be able to vote on it. For example a change would need 2/3 positive votes over a period of 1 month.
The number of changes per time period should also be limited to avoid change suggestion spamming. For example each month only the top voted 5 changes with 2/3 positive votes are taken. This number itself could be voted on the same way.
The same way voting could also be done on the curation percentage in an category. So @smooth could vote for a smooth comment curation payout :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So what about if we had two voting powers, one for comments, and one for everything else. Voting on comments would not effect your voting power for everything else where you could earn curation rewards, but would decrease your comment voting power (to keep comment rewarding fair)?
This way voting on a comment would not be a wasted vote, but something extra that you can choose to do with out losing out on curation rewards. Aka make it so there is no reason not to vote on comments.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I might not be understanding it 100% correctly, but it sounds like they are thinking of letting each platform decide on how to allocate the rewards for the content generated through their site. You could end up with sites that decide to pay comment curators 75% if they decided that was a good model for the type of site/community they wanted to create.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
OK that would be better. I thought they were going to take away curation rewards for comments.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like the "competing websites" part .. it is like a referral program for sites and hosters .. It could help developers monetize on their tools and sites ( e.g. piston, busy) .. +1
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is exactly where I was hoping this is heading. Steem will become a way of work and play, not only a blogging site called Steemit! Thank you for this innovation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting direction to head towards. I had thought of content division with payout differences before, but didn't think about how it would be feasible to implement... like how valued are these links or copy/paste paragraphs to other sites and how are they going to be rewarded...
That seems to be reasonable. But I would like some real figures as an example. i.e. compare a post now, X payout, and X1 author and X2 curator rewards, Y comment rewards... vs. new format, blog post X, X1, X2, Y comment, and Z links reward values, so we can understand how much is being attributed to each.
Thank you!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I love the idea of opening a Steem based comment section similarly to the way it's done with Disqus.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Can you link an example of a site with disqus comment section?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/list-of-sites-that-use-disqus.2205298/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like the ideas behind this, especially that of getting more web sites to integrate with the steem blockchain. But deciding what percentages to award to comments vs initial posts and author rewards versus curation rewards for the different types of posts seems like a tough issue to get right the first time. Would these be parameters that would be voted in by the witnesses or hard-coded?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
parameters makes a lot of sense to me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It could go either way. I'd like to see it parametrized with an initial target of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, personally.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sites should determine if they want to accept payment or not. Maybe certain nonprofits built to serve the Steem blockchain and community would opt out.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, those settings are 1/3 long post; 1/3 short post; 1/3 comment. The split between website and author would be set by the website.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do it with smart contracts. Allow user issued assets with their own reward pool. Open up the internal market to trade these user issued assets.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This seems like the most sensible approach to this issue, because it would keep the increased complexity of such schemes away from core blockchain development.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I love these propositions! With the division of payouts it will make a viable business model for app developer or project like Busy, we will less be dependant on donations and will able to grow funding in same time we grow activity on our apps. With this change we can pay signup fee for new users, we can create a referral system, it will give us much more possibilities.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Completely agree with you :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I waiting for a long time, finally saw some reform， I have some ideas want to share,
If this idea is adopted, will promote steemit, let more people come here and use steemit
Do steemit market,steemit need a
" Affiliate Program"
When I bring new users and traffic, it should give me commission
We need these funds to go to more sites to advertise (Write artices optimization steemit and purchase ads)
If there is no commission, no one is willing to spend money to help steemit optimization，Because we need to spend time, This will allow more old users to introduce new people here，
I hope you can discuss，This will give the blog sites or author, a huge impetus
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
With this proposed change, steemit.com could construct transactions to automatically pay commission to the documented referrer for each account.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would rather see a separate blockchain feature for rewarding account referrers and registrars, as was briefly discussed here. I don't like the idea of a user easily getting around paying the cut to their referrer/registrar by switching clients. The registrar is more likely to pay the account registration fee for a new user if they know they will continue getting a cut of author/curator rewards (up until the accumulated pay to the referrer/registrar reaches some limit) regardless of what client that user ends up using.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, In this reform, today I saw some good changes, Let me see the hope of the future！
A: Disqus, which is a very popular tool, including many of my own website using, Use it to achieve the exchange of traffic SEO
B:Different Curation Rewards for Different Content Types, I like the idea
Thank you very much for your hard work
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'll have a different aproach to attract people to steem (blogs, news papers, youtubers, etc). I'd create a attribute url_reference. When a new post is written an a valid url_reference has been entered the payout will be distributed as follows: 1/3 for the author, 1/3 for the curators, 1/3 for the url owner.
In this way, blogger, youtubers, tweeterers, newspapers or companies can be rewarded just due to the fact that someone is pointing to your content from within a steem post.
This url owner rewards would be then automatically transfered to a steem account who identifies as legitime owner of the content refered by url_reference.
Legitimation could be also automated with the already known back-linking method.
The effect is that people still outside of the steem and even without knowing that steem or steemit exists could be earning rewards just due to the fact that steemit posts refering to their content are getting rewarded.
Imagine what would happen if, for instance, successfull youtubers discovered that they have hunderds of SBD waiting to be transfer to them as soon as they legitimate linking the refered steemit url on their youtube video
This also could created a sort of third rolle in steemit: referrers or reviewers or discoverers. . Authors who discover good content outside of steem and are also rewarded for it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I actually thought by having github issue #325 we sort of started thinking about exact same structure of payouts. I might be wrong but I support this because each new or starting projects on top of Steem, one way or another having issue with project development funding and sustainable revenue model around it, beside steemit. There are some other ways to have revenue model for eSteem project for example that I have been thinking for a while now but they are far from being ready and userbase doesn't really support it at this stage. Embedded comments are really another service we can explore by building plugins which I think is great idea for a project.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great ideas. Steem blockchain is a great backend for content publishers and producers. They don't have to worry about censorship or backups because everything is on the blockchain. It's quite unique value proposal and should be one of the best marketing points for Steem (of course other people have talked about this too, but Steem is the first to implement this and also easy to use).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The question is, how hosting private keys would be solved? If http://geekinprison.com/ will integrate comments, then to be able to comment there I would have to:
a) register new account through his website - but then I will have a trouble to gain significant SteemPower there, and.. only author of blog would have a significant impact for rewards of new guys
b) share my posting key with potentially not trusted webstie
What we need is SteemConnect on steroids - decentralize solution, what I believe is very challenging if even possible.
For sure a possibility of having multiple posting keys would be helpful. Compromising one posting key, should not have impact for main posting key.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @noisy - the question is touched on in one of the comment threads above (including a reply from Dan). Multiple posting keys seems to be the direction it would head. I share exactly the same concerns as you do though!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I just figure out that from user perspective, dealing with keys is already something difficult and new, and introducing even more keys could be really confusing.
I believe this could work, that user should be able create new "slaves" account and link them to original account (via steem connect or steemit). Then user would have a possibility of setting a rule for particular slave account (behind a scane of course additional keys would be used). Then blockchain after noticing any action from slave account should trigger proper action on main account, of course after checking whether permissions of particular slave account allows to take particular action.
This will allow keeping slave keys by each service individually (ideally not even by them, but by browser).
What do you think?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a good suggestion. I agree 100% that whatever solution they implement, it is probably going to complicate things! I hope they can come up with a good solution that strikes the right balance.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, this is what I have tried to say on SteemFest)
Blockchain has the motivation and Authors have the motivation.
But the Developers who have the main costs don't have.
With that improvement the situation will change!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I help to moderate and run a popular finance forum. We have been thinking about creating our own blockchain to do the same thing as here, only with content focused mainly on macroeconomics and energy trading. Being able to bypass creating and establishing our own currency and hooking into steem blockchain for a relatively low price would be amazing for us. I definitely like where this is headed. Thanks -Heidi
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
steem comment addon for wordpress. please.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My response:
(click image for larger version)
That being said I do like the idea of review and possibly tweaks to link, comment and content payouts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wordpress posts / pages account for OVER 4% OF ALL INTERNET WEB PAGES (yes you read that right, over 4%). I highly recommend devoting financial resources twords creating an official Wordpress plugin. Furthermore, Wordpress is VERY developer friendly with outstanding modularity and TONS of hooks into backend functions that require very little coding. Using any decent existing STEEM API to connect to the STEEM blockchain, a half decent v1 beta plugin with post AND comments functionality could be built in WEEKS by a fairly small team, not months...that's how powerful Wordpress's underlying framework is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're running a serious risk tying money especially crypto together with the disease fest that is wordpress.
That's why no one who knows how to make this work with wordpress is very interested in doing so.
It might run 4% of the internet, but it's the 4% that's always compromised :D
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for trolling me, it's been awhile. Lol
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It wasn't a troll. Someone resteemed the post it looked fresh to me.
I'm serious about wordpress though. There is no way I'm letting a word press site anywhere near my steem credentials.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You can use 2 way encryption (I did it for an old Reddcoin WordPress plugin a couple years ago). Then you can safely store your posting key encrypted and decrypt it with a password only when exporting posts. I agree a lot of WordPress installs are very very poorly secured though. It takes a webmaster to truly harden a WordPress install from being hacked easily.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think it seems like a good direction to head in, and I applaud the effort to expand the use of the Steem blockchain and currency.
I think the idea of having different reward structures for different types of content is an excellent idea!
I'm not quite sure about the domain and service provider receiving a share of the rewards. I understand companies need to make a profit, and it is a good incentive to encourage adoption - so I am not opposed to it, but I would need to know more details about how it would work before I would be fully on board with the idea.
One question I have which I think is crucial to expanding to more of a distributed implementation across multiple platforms is how will security be handled? Will users have to plug their private keys into third party websites in order to use the Steem functions there? Even if they only need the private posting key, having users sharing this with tons of third party sites could be a huge drawback.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The website that a post or comment is created inside of would be able to dictate the % cut that goes to the posters and or commenters. For instance Zerohedge could give a % of STEEM rewards to their authors while taking a percentage for posting the link to the ZH article. As another example, the commenters posting through a Steem-Disqus would be given a % while Steem-'scus could also take a %. And like Steemit exists now, some platforms could always give 100% of Steem rewards to the poster/commenter.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok. So basically each interface could define how the rewards for posts/comments in their domain would be allocated. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is why most blogs would opt to use a trusted provider like steemit.com and use an iframe to host comments.
It should be easy enough to have a "key per provider" so that you know which provider was hacked.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Revocable delegate keys would enable this, it also helps with curation guilds, per app passwords like Google has. And you could add later secret share keys that enable an x of y override key for such as death, coma and other forms of becoming legally incompetent (Facebook has something like this since so many users had died...).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It may be worth considering updates to the private keys to allow users to place additional restrictions on what individual posting keys are allowed to do. For example restricting the domain that they can interact in. If there was also a way to force the external sites to use a separate key, that would probably be good too. This would greatly reduce the risk of malicious third party sites taking advantage of users private keys.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly!
But I would be against of forcing a user to dealing with all those keys, because for average users those things are already really complicated and new. What do you think about concept of slaves accounts: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives#@noisy/re-timcliff-re-noisy-re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161119t122443054z
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As some know we have had an active blog for some time. We have always has issues getting people from our blog into other areas. With these changes would our:
Thank you for working to include bloggers, and this might even help get some very popular bloggers to respond with integration with steemit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I really need a wordpress plugin that can fully integrate our site into @exploretraveler . I really hate ads and would love to ban them unless they are relevant to something we do. Like Podcasts or Bitcoin
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"What If" general concept idea that seems to fit in this conversation...
Within the context of this system, what if resteemed content actually took the form of a new post. It would be classified within the link sharing content rewards, and would auto split a given % back to the original content author. This would reduce the drawbacks of the current post payout periods by allowing content to remain somewhat evergreen and capable of gaining an additional rewards trickle. At any time a post could go viral and would result in a solid rewards pyramid back to the content author.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's an interesting idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Cool! Would be awesome if the blog creator could send all of the blogs rewards to the comments (proportional to all the votes). So people will find they have way more voting power in the comment if large voters upvote the post.
This is very important in the alt-media communities. Corbett in this video gives several examples of what he calls Open Source Investigations. In this model the comments are everything.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not sure I understood you exactly but what I get from it is that it would make sense if the total comments reward of a post should be some proportion to the reward of the post. Post with big rewards should gather more reactions and comments and those should gather more weight/reward compare to comments on post with smaller reward.
I'm not sure how feasible that would be but I feel this concept has some value. Posts and comments would most probably have to be 2 separated pool rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
With the changes likely coming to the inflation rate, how would this kind of adoption affect the daily rewards pool? How would it impact scalability?
Currently, the rewards are enticing and payouts can be fairly lucrative for good writers/bloggers - with only a few thousand active users. But what would happen to payouts if Steemit and the various other platforms were to reach one million users over the next several months? How would the rewards pool look if there were 100,000 active users per week instead of less than 10,000 - price being the same as it is today to keep it simple? (I realize that prices would likely rise if there was rapid, large-scale adoption.)
My understanding was that one of the reasons for the higher inflation was that it would allow for better scalability. Was that a misunderstanding? Don't get me wrong - I think the proposed changes are a net positive for the currency, I just wanted to know how this can affect the pool. I would imagine that this would significantly reduce the average possible payout over time as the user base increases, unless there is a near equal rise in Steem price.
Any clarification is appreciated.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Assuming a fixed market cap, an increase in competition will result in lower average rewards. The most popular content will still command a relatively hefty reward.
The scenario where the market cap remains flat but our user base grows 100x is one that I consider unlikely. Knowing how markets work, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a 100x growth in user activity result in a 500x growth in market cap.
To put it in perspective, if every bitcoin transaction represented 1 user, there there is currently an average of 250,000 daily users of BTC. That means BTC has 78x the number of daily users and only 40x the number of weekly users. In this situation we see that bitcoin has 600x the market cap.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So, do you believe that the inflation rate is mostly irrelevant to scalability then? What I understand is that the market cap may rise and the price of Steem may rise, but the number of Steem in circulation may not increase proportionally. Wouldn't this mean that authors and curators will get higher value in rewards per unit, but the number of units would be limited - less overall users would be receiving rewards. Is that right?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
STEEM is very divisible, so more overall users would be receiving rewards. Each reward would comprise of less STEEM but the STEEM would be worth more.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ah, yes. You're right. I was thinking about it on a whole unit, vote, and dollar basis. The divisibility is obvious and I can't believe I overlooked that. Sorry for inadvertently wasting your time, but thank you for responding.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've been very curious about this. How many places does the block chain calculate out to currently and is that expandable as prices rise? I see more SP decimal places on some third party interfaces that don't show on the current site.
I feel that minnows even now should be rewarded in whatever small fraction of SP they earn from rewards, even if it doesn't meet a .01 payout threshold. Seeing progress is important for user retention, and would frame rewards as more of a points system redeemable for currency, fostering a more long term - less immediate mindset.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have been assured by those folks at GitHub that the minnow math is being done in the code, just not in the UI.
And my wallet seems to reflect that.
Even if your curation rewards don't get to .001 the math is still being done and your account is getting credited, I'm told.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think comments should be rewarded. This is one of the very reasons I like Steemit.com, as it promotes active discussions and debates. Otherwise the site will just be a flat billboard of content and little social interaction.
I want to upvote those who comment on my blogs. I like showing (through financial rewards) my appreciation to those who add to the topic or discussion. Voting rewards on comments promotes such activities. Please keep them!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Making a STEEMIT plugin for WordPress would open STEEMIT to countless sunday bloggers and thus increase STEEMIT's authority and user base. On some blogs this could even substitute the (often) underperforming AdSense.
However sharing links only would destroy STEEMIT's creadibility with google and make it harder to be found. in order to keep STEEMIT high on SERPs a minimum of (just an estimation) 150 words should accompany that link.
If both of the above could be implemented we could soon be seeing thousands of new upvotes from semi-popular blogs.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have knonw about Steemd as far as reading Steemit information, or at least thought is what I thought. Never heard of Busy.org and after a quick look I am not sure what it is going to be. Are there already other Steemit sites that are like these?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for the work that you all do.
Comments are what make this place a community, please don't diminish their importance by devaluing them,...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have seen comments that say something as simple as "Awesome post" back in the make-up tutorial days make over $100 so I agree this is a great way to make sure STEEM is being distributed in the best way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All this talk of changing the reward system is discouraging.
I do like the idea of bringing my blog here which I have let get cold since I joined steemit. But I use WIX.com which is Flash based and I doubt it will work here because i the posts i read about the websites mentioned wordpress.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Encourage Competing Websites
This is great for @steemsports, we are working on our website that will interface with the Steem blockchain, encouragement is always welcome.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I really like these ideas. It is the future of steem.
The best part is that we can create different interfaces based on steemit and get a share. It's great!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's an interesting idea that curation rewards for blog upvotes would be lowered. In a way, it'd be nice to see how users would react with lower curation rewards, since it would take away from the "gaming" aspect of Steemit; people would upvote what they like, instead of upvoting what will make them money.
On the other hand, though, with low curation rewards, would the incentive to hold STEEM Power suffer?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like the idea of differing rewards depending on the type of content, I think that makes a lot of sense. However in relation to this, we still only get 40 votes per day, to go along with this or maybe for the benefit of comment curation, everyone should be given a separate and specific comment voting power, that goes down just like normal voting power (to keep people from voting on 10000 comments to dole out too much rewards) but is also separate from voting power upon which curation rewards can be earned.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All of that is cool.
More importantly to the blogging community as opposed to the one day would be currency community, can you guys do a 10:1 reserve split now though so that the value of steem isn't in dime range and instead in the dollar range so there is incentive to blog again.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What good does moving the decimal place over one time to the right do for your payouts?
You do realize that the daily reward pool would have to decrease by 10X to match 1 Steem being worth 10X more, right? Net effect: likely the same payouts, possibly a little less, possibly a little more, depending on how the market collectively perceives the move (I admit that 1 Steem equaling $1 looks more attractive at the surface, but having the number of Steem in my wallet decrease by 10X tells the rest of the story - net: no change).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Looking at the much bigger scope, getting more website to integrate Steem is a great idea. I believe in the long vision of Steem to create a product which millions of people around the world can use is what we need. How we do and make it fair to every body is always a challenge, but let's keep the broader vision and keep experimenting and learning day by day. If I can help others get some cash with their blog in a decentralize way, it's awesome. If can't code, I can surely help Steem get known to potential investors, writers and marketers for the good of the community. At the end, we all win.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have two follow up thoughts after thinking about this some more.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not sure what you're saying.
I have an account on BlogSpot. A few of them actually.
Let's take "greybeard dreaming" for example. (long neglected). If I were to start blogging on it (easier than Stemmit for sure) how would I integrate to steemit and retain the advantages I have here?
$ and rep.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's good to see steemit aiming to embrace a broader net here. Integrating with external audience seems like a strong way of improving the value of steem as a currency while also insuring it doesn't get gobbled up by a competitor. (turkey pun intentional)...
Creating a percentage distribution of payout (as you mention under "encouraging competing websites") is a great incentive.
For the other artists out there - we cover a huge number of other websites / outlets to promote and engage people with our content. This could be a sustainable way to maintain our existing relationships on other sites while generating an umbrella income from all of them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for sharing these interesting ideas.
Shared on twitter
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Experimental Crowdsourced Steem Metrics Report for 18th November 2016 by @ontofractal
NEDTALK on SteemSpeak Radio - November 18 2016 by @steemspeak
Daily Steemart - Day 15 by @anca3drandom
KLYE Comic #10 - "Taxes" by @klye
하드포크 일정, 바뀐점, 계획 (steemitblog 의 글) by @morning
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
+5%
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think it's pretty much all fantastic. I particularly love the idea of splitting rewards across accounts; that should enable all kinds of really cool things.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I love the ideas and direction this would move us towards but would also love to see a WordPress plugin that would except Steem and SBD transactions.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As I understand this direction, the goal is to introduce the Steem economy in other transactions. The most important part that is syndicated is not the content, which can also be created outside of the current web platform, but the currency and the economical model.
This creates a strategic challenge.
In this scenario, Steem becomes more of a currency and less of a community.
But what makes Steem a currency right now is the community on Steemit.com.
Without the people writing here, and without the curators, there won't be any market cap, nobody will buy Steem at all. IMHO, a currency exists only as long as the convention behind it exists. If the community around Steem is weakened, the currency will be weakened as well. Right now, Steem can be bought with real money and, at the moment of writing this comment, 1 Steem is worth 0.12 USD. What makes this possible is the current community and economic model (its size and its activity). Without this real economy going on, Steem will be just another loyalty rewards points plugins out there, just another gamification system.
As I see things right now, strategically, the focus should be on building the community here, which will result in strengthening of the currency, and only then attracting other communities by the "gravitational field" created by this real economy. They should ask us to include them. If this is already happening and I didn't see it in the article, well, it means it's ok, we're on the right path. But if not, well...
If the community here becomes less valuable, or too diluted, that will in turn affect Steem as the currency and that will spiral down the price until the whole economy collapses.
I'm just writing this here as food for thoughts. Would love your comments and, most of all, would love some real arguments that will contradict the above scenario.
And one more thing: with so many different communities that are using Steem, what's the role of witnesses and how the governance will be enforced? What they will govern, actually?
I'm not saying that this expansion shouldn't be made, as a matter of fact I'm looking forward to it, as I have a few projects involving the transfer of Steem outside Steemit.com. I'm just saying there are many, many, many variables and I wand to understand as many as I can.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think community will build itself once the UI/UX of steemit.com improve.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly these changes I waited in the platform, for non-bloggers. This should serve as an push to attract a large number of normal people.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You could have a similar split functionality with curation rewards as well. No reason to not give more ways for Steem clients to extract value from their users in frictionless ways (i.e. ways that do not require the user to pay transaction fees or subscription fees). Of course this mechanism still doesn't provide any way for them to extract value from users who are merely reading content (which still requires paying nearly the same amount for infrastructure to support that read-only access for their users), but at least they could still extract some value from the segment of their user base that are lurkers but still curate.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
+1
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit