It'll be difficult to deal with the butthurts if people paid for the premium-queue and don't get any votes in return if their posts don't pass lol. Anyway, curie has been operating without providing any curation rewards back to the delegators. It all gets distributed back into the ecosystem instead.
RE: Steemit has problems. I have The Grand Solution.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steemit has problems. I have The Grand Solution.
Stake-holders would do well to realize that delegating SP without any strings attached will lead to a meritocratic curation ecosystem. That'll ultimately lead to a healthier Steem network, that may (given an informed market) increase their stake's worth by millions of dollars. Surely, that's worth a lot more than fishing for a few thousand here or there for selling delegations and votes.
Of course, the whales need to unite and take action to enhance content on Steem, and delegate to hundreds/thousands of the most engaged and loyal curators of the community.
Yes, I know this is an utterly utopian idea, and will never happen, but thought I'd leave it out there. But then again, Curie and steemSTEM are still surviving, so it is not impossible. As far as I'm aware, neither pay for upvotes etc. The same might also be true of OCD, I think?
PS, to clarify: Projects that do not ask anything from curators or authors. They do not pay for voting power, but rely on altruistic whales. They return all revenues back to the community. This way, there's complete apolitical meritocracy with no scope for corruption.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As mentioned in the chat, that's not wrong, but I think if we limit subjective requiements and focus on objective, as in, referenced, credited images, original content, more than 25 words, then we can easily guarantee a minimum, and if they don't match those objective requirements then they can't complain.
Regarding Curie, at steemstem, we get paid via the curation rewards that are generated from our team's work in science. It's not huge (the people we upvote get substantially more than I ever will being one with the power), but it keeps me happy
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We basically need more OCDs and curies and steemstems, and utopians. And for the whales to delegate power to them. How do we do that?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ha! Butthurts
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@mobbs, in order for us to determine if the whales will bite, would be to first determine what their ROI on leasing to upvote bots is. After that, if you can get close to that ROI, then its all about what the whale feels like doing. If its far below, then its certainly going to be zero dice unless they understand what your unique value proposition is and how they can benefit from it.
I think what you are offering might not be reasonable, only because there are plenty of whales who do not post and only upvote. Why? Because if I had $500,000 in a savings account, chances are that I don't have time to sit around writing and upvoting stuff.
The reality of what will happen to steemit can only be one of two choices. Both of which fall in line with whales who are only here to turn a profit. If steemit continuously produces bad content, then the circle jerk upvote bots will continue to accelerate the erosion of value as steemit continues to attempt to take off.
The other way to make money, and much more explosively is to find ways to incentivize people to keep producing GOOD content such that over time, those who strive for perfection and growth of their craft will be on par with the best users on youtube and instagram. Which in it self, is NOT an easy thing to do. The only pitch I can come up is to say that its in their best interest to push the best of the best to continue to provide the best content in order to increase the value of STEEM, otherwise it will be stuck at its current price, forever.
Lets face it, the most successful bloggers and vloggers on steemit are a FAR cry from those who are on youtube. That's because theres still not a large enough economic incentive for them to switch to this platform, which means that the only way is for steemit content creators to improve their craft, and in for that to happen, they must get the biggest rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sorry I read this on my phone when I woke up and forgot about it.
Well, a large part of what you write is exactly the intent of my proposition and I think it would be potentially quite successful in doing so.
The whales I refer to are precisely the ones who don't post, the ones who either upvote fo curation rewards, or sell votes thus spurring the abuse.
My proposal doesn't even touch upon upvote bots. Upvote bots are not a critical problem as of yet, the majority made for small users who are trying to get rich quick, not for the millionaires on top.
However, I've determined that the vote selling business in question makes about $720,000 a year if the rate is the current blocktrades rate and they get rent out 4 million's worth of SP, as blocktrades is.
With my idea, a random example of paying $20 for a premium upvote, and 50 people do that per day, that's $360,000. You could very reasonably double that to 100 a day, or $40 for bigger votes to match their current model, or even more.
Finally, I don't think we need to be comparing things with YouTube and so forth. YouTube took up 2% of the internet at one point, we're hardly in the same league, this is a small community website where almost everyone knows everyone else at a certain point, so I'm not concerned about upping quality, and besides, quality is subjective and we shouldn't really force higher quality upon people
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
no worries! Thanks for replying! I think the quality of the content is critical to invetors (whales). If I were a whale, I wouldn't support half the content on here. strike that, i wouldn't support 75% of the content on here. There are days where i struggle to find something to upvote. And while quality is subjective, we can all agree that we wouldn't upvote something that is equatable to midnight word vomit that summarizes everything an article they read just said.
Trying to stay back on point now!!! If you offered premium upvotes to whales, then you still need to incentivize them to post to begin with, otherwise they will default back to upvote bots. I wouldn't bother posting a day to try and collect rewards from my $500,000 investment. I would litterally have more important things to do.
So if I were a whale, what a I really want is to see my money invested into something that is legitimately good, like a community project, an ongoing series, and growing idea etc.
I bring up youtube because youtube has become an area where someone use it as a utility to show something on video, rather than trying to only collect the attention of other users. Its a bit more raw in its use, which is something that we need here to create more real characters.
Now to make some breakfast....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
One of us is misunderstanding the other hang on... I don't want any whales to produce content, which seems to be what you're saying. All they need to do is delegate their money to curators, and then sit back and watch the money come in. Which is exactly what you're saying you would want to see: 'money invested into something like a community project' - as in, curation teams that do the quality checking on the whale's behalf.
Right?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i am defintely misunderstanding you because I didnt get why a whale would pay for a premium upvote (other then to vote on thier own content). But yes, I think delegating SP to curators is the key to success, but this success must bridge to the outside world. Content creation and keeping SBD internal to the steem economy does not serve any purpose. The more SBD can reach the outside world, the more likely it is that the outsideworld invests in SBD. its sort of like wall st. They sell financial instruments and that cycle creates a predictability of money that is the engine to the world economy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Totally. I do see a few great incentives for that cause, such as a steemstore where you can buy products directly with steem (can't remember what its called), but also the fact that there's slowly becoming a whole range of social media mimics; twitters, youtubes and so forth all linked to steem blockchain, which I think is fantastic, or would be if they weren't so clunky... one day!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
One day! I have a blog that im going to put out soon once i review it 100x, but basically, my point is that there is a lot of inflated money, and not enough stuff to spend it on! That creates people who are willing to do anything and if you have anything as the basis for a payout, you will get crap! We litterally have too much money right now. How nuts is that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit