Agree on that issue, it doesn't make cognitive sense because the creator (author) get's the same rewards as the consumer (curator), I also believe Steem was 50/50 at some point maybe have worked fine back then, so may work out, will see.
RE: My take on HF21
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My take on HF21
I forgot to mention this Earlier that there is also the fact that most Dapps on the STEEM Blockchain has a 10% Beneficiary Reward which I feel is necessary for them to Run the Service but if the split goes to 50/50 then actually it will be 40% Author Reward, 50% Curation Reward and 10% Beneficiary Reward.
The Delegation Market will Suffer as well because no one will be taking in any Huge Delegations when that will cost them huge Money in the Short Run. Plus I am pretty sure that a lot of Dapps will shut down as most people who still stay in the Platform after the 50/50 split will avoid those Dapps so that they can save that 10% Reward.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's right I think lot's of apps will suffer after the HF, content and curation will be the few activities left.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
After HF 20 we lost a lot of People her eon Steemit and I feel this time after HF 21 we might lose both people and Future Dapp Developments.
These are very important decisions and people need to be objective about them. Almost everyone sees one side of the coin that is facing upward but what about the side of the Coin that is facing downward.
I totally agree that we shod curate more but by doing that you shouldn't screw all the Authors. I just did a quick calculation on my Curation Rewards and it seems I am earning 60 SP per week as Curation Reward and 130 SP as Author Reward but if the 50/50 split happens then I will get 75 SP as Curation Reward and 80 SP as Author Reward which means I will lose more Author Rewards then I will get Curation Rewards. BTW I use 60% of my Power for curation and only 40% for my own Posts so ultimately even though I curate more I won't get a better deal out if this 50\50 split.
I take about 40000 SP lease so that I can curate and I pay for them from my Author Rewards after this I am most definitely not going to continue leasing as that would take money out of my pocket.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes that is a concern I think the changes are geared with Steemit.com in mind and adjusting the economy around that, not much thought to other business types and potential publisher models that could arise out of the new Nitrous and Rocketx condenser clones.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a good reason for the SPS funding be shifted from the content reward pool. As you say content rewards based on voting is a very steemit.com-centric model, and as such is way overfunded with a 75% share going to a single model. Other models should have a chance to compete for those funds too (without needing to engage in reward-pool milking).
With SPS, other models and projects can make their proposal for a portion of the 'greater reward pool' funds intended to be spent in various ways to add value to Steem.
Ultimately I would like to see the steemit.com reward pool, if it survives in its present form at all, take the form of an SPS proposal that gets a piece of the budget in level competition with other apps and their proposals.
Or alternately, SPS proposals can draw from the unified reward pool alongside posts and comments.
Either way, we should get away from steemit.com as being the primary app that gets direct access to community funding and every other model has to compete for scraps.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am all for the SPS, I am 100% behind it and also agree that would be nice that the blogging reward pool also take the form of a proposal and be budgetted in.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Brilliant. I don't expect that right now and I don't think we should even pursue it short term because it is more important to get SPS quickly rolled out in any reasonable form, but I hope we can all work together to move in this direction in the future.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure you can count on me Smooth, happy to work with you to push this agenda later.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's not actually how it works though.
You have, in a typical/hypothetical case, one author and 100 curators. The author gets 50%, each curator gets 1/2% (on average).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure but the author sees it like, I wrote this and am getting only half the rewards and these curators getting the other half for just clicking on an upvote button, authors don't take into consideration how many curators will be splitting the 50%, in some cases it could be the same person behind all those curator bot accounts anyway.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Help educate them.
"In some cases" sure, but that is not typical of any sort of social platform with actual users. We have to think about these things in terms of how they actually work on a platform-wide basis not one edge case.
Anyway, that is not the reason why curation rewards need to be higher for the system to have a chance to work and that's a whole different discussion. It is useful for people to understand (to the extent they don't already or are being misled), that one piece (author's share) goes to a single user and the other piece (curation) is typically split up many ways with each voter getting only a tiny slice.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It would be more effective if the frontend such as steemit.com explains this, hard for one person to educate everyone and new users join all the time (hopefully) :).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're right the UI is terrible. Maybe it improves (which would be somewhat of a miracle at this point after years of mostly not, but you never know) or maybe other apps and UIs continue to grow and take its place.
Anyway, as a Steem witness and Steem stakeholder and not a steemit.com witness nor a Steemit shareholder, my primary concern is that the blockchain mechanisms function effectively, which from all available evidence at this point requires a much higher (than 25%) curation split.
Which, of course, I told them in 2016 and if they had listened to me we could have avoided onboarding thousands of users under the false promise that a system paying the author 75% of the payouts would actually work. Now, unfortunately, we have to pay the substantial costs (not only this one by any means) of remedying years of bad decisions and general neglect. Hopefully it isn't too late and we manage to turn things around.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I really hope we can turn things around, especially in the face of Voice. The funding will help, once SPS is in place I'm applying for a marketing budget for Dlease and Tokenbb, I still think they can go viral given the right marketing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit