Is 5 votes per day ultimately going to be good for the platform or bad?

in steemit •  8 years ago  (edited)

If you haven't heard the latest news... you've probably been enjoying a nice long vacation! If you have been, here is the latest tidbit:

Everyone's voting power is going to drop from 40 votes over a 5 day rolling period to 5 votes over a 5 day period. This doesn't mean total votes, but voting power. It is a slight but important difference. Is this ultimately good news for the platform or just another measure that will concentrate all the wealth to the top users?

As it stands right now, there are hundreds of good posts that never get noticed... is having less "powerful votes" the answer for getting them noticed? 

My opinion is probably not...

Having fewer votes will cut down on the payouts to bots that are programmed to upvote anything particular authors release, but less curation rewards will ultimately mean less rewards for those particular authors. That in itself isn't a bad thing. However, the real difference will likely be felt with actual human curators.

Human curators will no long spend their time and votes scanning through the endless posts trying to find diamonds in the rough that likely will never pay out because they don't want to waste one of their precious votes on said posts. Instead, they will only vote on the authors and topics they feel very strongly about doing well, why would they not?

It only makes sense if people have a couple votes to use per day in order to maximize rewards, for them to save those votes for the posts they have the most confidence in... The chance is designed to affect the bots, but really who will it affect the most? 

To me is seems likely it will mostly affect the ones it was designed to help...

It seems likely that authors who already get very little votes will get even less now, and human curators who do a good job looking for good posts that get very little love will abandon that strategy as it benefits them very little financially. 

Lets hear from the community... is this a good idea or a bad one? Should we consider something like 20 votes over a 5 day period? What say you?

Image Source: http://crowdcourse.net/

Follow:@jrcornel

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:  

I like it the way it is now
I do not have a bot
I am fine with no bot

I guess some Whales have bots
and gather it is stressing the system

Possibly... I just don't see how this will help the posters who already get very little votes...

Time will tell. I think the main purpose is to curb the auto-voting bots. Those people with a certain level of steem power, will be able to cast fractional upvotes e.g. they can give a votes with 12% power, another with 40% power. So they'll be able to vote more than 5 times but with reduced power.

This will certainly hurt curation. And we'll probably see a drop in upvoting comments. Also, it seems some people have multiple accounts. If these accounts have higher steem power, then the owners will have more freedom to vote as they have in the past. My fear is that dolphins and whales will only vote for their normal friends. But I am curious to see if the $2000 payouts will give way to $300 or $400 payouts. I had hoped that minnow votes would have much more financial weight, but since it's based on steem power, I'm not sure that will be true. In other words, 100 minnow votes will probably not result in a significant payout for a post.

Another element is miner accounts. If you look at at person's history in steemd.com you'll sometimes see a post with votes by (as an example) Joe1, Joe2, Joe56 etc. I've been told these are miner accounts and have no idea how much steem power they have. So I'm unsure of their impact in this new structure.

What I do know is, aside from voicing your opinion on these changes, it's best to adapt to them and continue to put out good content.

I agree. I also don't see how this will benefit the little guys already getting very little upvotes... it seems votes will be reserved strictly for the guys who voters think will earn a lot on each post...

we should get rewards for views not upvotes, because after they click on an article to read that alone shows its attraction

Yep! Wonder if this is an option?!

It's going to be very good for the platform overall, increase in quality upvotes that matter, and content creators getting more rewards. Those who produce low quality or garbage content, will be forced to change and stop posting garbage if they want to make money.

Possibly... what about the small guy that puts out good content that never gets noticed? It seems likely that votes will be "spent" on users with the reputation of earning large payouts... don't you think?

Well that's why people need to go through the "new" section to find things. I do that. And I find new content to upvote. People are to blame for being lazy. Not the system. They don't care about "unpopular" content, so they just ignore looking for it... the people in this community are the ones to blame. Not the platform itself.

Well we need to create a platform that provides incentives for that.. don't you think? If we both know people are going to act a certain way given certain rules, doesn't it seem productive to curb those rules to change how they might act?

The incentive is act responsibly, do some work to help the community without expecting to make money... People need to grow up. "Why would I waste my time searching for OTHER people's content to upvote when I won't even make any curation rewards... psshhh!" The problem is people. They want and demand change, but won't go do it themselves to make the community better. They just want to whine and moan to get other people to fix it. The change starts with each of us changing. Peace.