BlockTrades beginning development of Steem Proposal System
Steemit has agreed to fund development of a Steem Proposal System (SPS) that is similar to Bitshares’ Worker Proposal System.
Terms of agreement
After further discussions with Steemit, including an online discussion with the Steem community on a recent “State of Steem” discord session, Steemit and BlockTrades have reached an agreement to have BlockTrades develop an implementation of the Worker Proposal System discussed in our last blog post (now formally named the Steem Proposal System) .
Approximately $55K USD worth of STEEM will be paid from Steemit to Blocktrades for each month of work. The task is projected to require between 1 and 2 months of work and will include scheduling of a hardfork. Steemit considers this funding to be a part of a larger donation to the SPS and wishes that the Steem community will be actively involved in evaluating the development of this proposal.
Overview of Steem Proposal System
For an overview of the motivation for the Steem Proposal System and how it works, see our prior post:
https://steemit.com/blocktrades/@blocktrades/proposing-a-worker-proposal-system-for-steem
Proposal funding to come from author rewards pool
One of the things that came out of the community discussions was a clear preference for paying for proposals by drawing funds from an existing inflation source on the blockchain rather than adding more inflation to the blockchain (proposals can also be funded by donations).
We used https://steemdb.com to analyze the relative magnitude of the existing sources of inflation:
As can be seen from the image above, over 50% of the Steem blockchain’s inflation is paid to author rewards, so this is the most obvious place to look for funding for proposals, especially as a lot of author rewards now go to software development posts that would be able to receive funding more efficiently through a worker proposal. Our plan is to reduce the amount of inflation paid to author rewards from ~52% down to ~41% and redirect this amount to the worker proposal funding account. This should result in ample funds being available to pay for worker proposals.
Next Steps
Our team will begin by cloning the existing github repo into a separate github account where anyone will be able to view the work as it progresses. Once we’ve completed the coding, we’ll launch a testnet where interested parties can test it out.
From talking to people in the community and my personal preference I would first like to see what is done with donated money from Steemit/community then mess with the author rewards. I could be on the minority side here but isn’t this something we can put up for a vote community vote to see where the funds come from?
Posted using Partiko iOS
Ultimately such decisions are decided by "stake weight" in Steem, since stake weight elects the witnesses and the witnesses choose what version of the code to run.
Now, we could run some kind of poll to get opinion, but any poll counting just the number of votes would easily be gamed by users who have many accounts (one user I believe controls at least thousands of accounts).
Another option would be to create a post with two comments and let users compete by voting up those two comments. This would result in a "stake weighted" vote that would more likely reflect the witness voting that ultimately determines what change is accepted. One comment would be for just taking money from donations and the other would be to do it from author rewards as well.
Getting agreement from Steemit for both options from Steemit would also be important, as they are paying for the work.
https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@emrebeyler/dpoll-development-updates-result-filtering-and-voting-audits
dpoll just added a bunch of new features to help the voting process be as legit as possible. We could run a vote where:
The biggest problem with such a poll is that it won't necessarily reflect the poll that "counts", which is the stake weighted poll that elects witnesses.
I think it's fine to hold such a poll (although I think it can easily be gamed), but I think it would only make sense to do so if a stake weighted pole was also conducted simultaneoulsy. A stake-weighted poll can't be gamed, and it's the poll that really counts, at the end of the day.
Running only a gameable poll that is likely to generate results different from a stake-weighted poll is only likely to lead to dismay when the "poll that counts" yields different results.
I think a stake-weighted poll would work, your idea of doing two comments and the one with the most Steem power behind it wins. Reminds me of how PoW coins figure things out with hash power.
Ok, I'll make up a post after lunch (people are waiting for me now) with the two options. Assuming Steemit is ok with the results, we can let that decide.
I'll stay on with you @Theycallmedan. This issue should be subject to vote and @dpoll could etter handle that, Let me add here that:
Dpoll was made exactly for this sort of thing. This needs to be put to a vote!!
ya i liked dpoll
Oh ok cool we have @dpoll nice is it https://dpoll.io ? lol lemme guess, "get paid to post Polls and ask questions!" lol like @peerquery"
A vote would have been nice. ... I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that rewards can be unilaterally changed and redirected elsewhere.
What's to stop a malicious actor from redirecting rewards into their own wallet?
I own multiple accounts that fit that qualifications, so others probably do too. I think its best for witnesses to present their thoughts on it, and we vote for witnesses accordingly.
Nope, still not going to work... Plenty of dolphin and even whale account below 50 rep, rep cant be a factor, and also a brand new whale who just powered up recently also deserved to vote, no matter how many posts they have ....
SP should be the only factor we count... otherwise thse 1 person 1 vote shit is gonna get gamed so hard ... its not fair to start changing the rules after 3 years of stake weighted votes... qwe need to keep thinsg stake weighted while voting.,... if peopel wnbat to influence the vote more they HAVE to buy or earn more Steem! This is just ANOTHER BADLY needed incentive to need to buy more steem, dont let the socialists and anarchists around here who are poor ruin this for us... dont listen to all the weak peopel who just dont want anything to ever have a price tag associated with it, theers too many people who think its bad that you can BUY more of youre vote influence and yet thats EXACTLY how steem works and its a system we need to KEEP.
Lets face it, the MAJORITY of the users, if we listsned to them, would rather us give them all the money while they did as little woprk as possible, and the average user thinks they are way more valuable than they are... In reality at any time a hoard oif new users can come in and severely dilute the current user base so much so that anyone influential before is going to appear so small now, that they just wont ever matter again... so we need to stop listsneing to the crowd mob mentality... all these minnows and plankton who think their collective voice is worth just as much as one whale, when its liek... no dude... even 1 million plankston who dont even have 1 steem is worth less than 1 whale with 2 million steem, and that one whale is so much more valuable to us... theres limits to what a bunch of useless content can give us, and the only real luck will come to our platform when we get power users who will come from OTHER platforms to come sprinkle in their talent to steem from Reddit and Youtube and Twitter... I mean i cant wait to see Twitter users using @zappl with its 140 character limit to post very simple one liners and end up getting paid $100s evebn $1000s for them over steem, now thats going to bea game changer.... but the current user base and all the things they want to "vote" on? Its just so lame...i feel like the devil cave hermiut in Red Dead Redemption 2 who longs for the age of kings and despises teh age of democracies.... because honestly theres way too many people out here on steem who think they are SOOO valuable... but in reality we need less hoardes of low quality shit posters and more high quality users, even in smaller numbers, because just 1user on instagram these days can have More followers than all the users on steem... just one instagram post of kanye west or kim kardashian will have many tiems more users than all of our blockchain haha jkust oen comment ofthgeir can have mroe atcivity than our entire chain.... thats something top consider when realizing steem's full growth over theyears.... SO WE CANT listen too seriously to the demandsof a few un important early adopters, and not so early adopters who are simply hanging around with a few hundred steem, hoping that every steem will be worth as much as a bitcoin one day.... these people on steem are goingf to be demanding upvotes for their "cont3enbt" when we should be putting that money away towards a lot of other more useful projects and dapps... so sad how much money has been going to peopel who neevr desreved it and it just inflated their egos... liek welfare... i just hope whales and dolphins become more sriuct with larger upvotes and delegations... ned was just giving out delegatio liek CANDY to all sorts of losers who NEVER deserved it and it makes some of us mad how careless he can be, giving MASSIVE amounst fo delegation to random users out there while AMZINg projects liek dlux.io go un delegated to with ned ignoring the BEST chance for steem to gaiun traction in the VR gaming world... i mean so many great projects for steem which ned , using dedlegation, can FIUND for FREE and what does ned do? he goes years without any updatyes and then FINALLY makes some posts recently now that the priceis low, but still it took the users to rais emoney themselve sto payf or nmerkating.. i just anm SO happy if ned powers down and sells his stake, i just doubt that he is doing that.... but its freaking everyone out and its like haha ned is hnot gonna sell at this low or a price, and we see mysrery accounts liek @ben powering up 2 millipn SPP after ned powers it down haha anyway.... im so high
@blocktrades Is it possible to use the SBD Inflation to pay for worker proposals?
In some sense, that's one of the two proposals being voted on.
Please follow up with this stake voted poll, we need these polls for taking real accurate polls on steem, with comments using decline payout for the different options users can vote on....
Also please dont take more from the authors when were already hurting so badly from low prices, we need you to take that money from curation instead because no one notices curation and they wont hurt. Also Authors arent any less important than witnesse so why not take a few percent from every section? Very strange youd just take it all from authors when too much is taken from that anyway... when authors are the most important part of steem and create all the content that even CREATES the reason for witnesses.... not the other way around... thats why this is called USER SUBMITTED CONTENT... and how reddit got to quarter of a billion users.... its the author rewards which need to go UP not down... Please take the money from curation and a little bit of all the categories, Just take 2 % from each category and no one will really notice the difference!
Dpoll guy is working on implementing an accurate stake-weighted poll, so I guess it will be ready by the time the more controversial aspect of this SPS is voted on (assuming I'm not wrong about the ultimate results of the current poll).
The fact that Steemit has offered to donate funds is great, but those funds will run out relatively quickly, and I am fairly certain that donations from the rest of the community won't come close to funding any real projects, at which point this system will be mostly dead. IMO it must be funded from inflation if it is to be sustainable past Steemit's donation.
Ultimately, rewards are viewed in USD terms, so the "bet" here is that if we put serious funding towards development/marketing/etc it will increase the market price of STEEM such that rewards are increased in USD terms.
I disagree. Here's why. We reward folks for posting, curating, and witnessing. That's what rewards go to. Those rewards are the inflation. Decreasing the rewards paid decreases the incentive to do those things. Author rewards particularly are already too low. Look at retention, and consider that reducing rewards to authors will make retention worse. Creators of content are the spigot from which ALL the value of Steem originates, and we're losing creators.
Further, I agree that donations won't work. @ned's generosity will get us going, but stable funding will be necessary to create value in Steem.
Votes are stake weighted. Capital gains are stake weighted. Increase in the price of Steem as a result of development funded via SPS will produce capital gains, and directly benefit stakeholders. This will not directly inure to those earning rewards, only indirectly when stake holders curate and pass on those gains to creators.
Stake receives the benefits, and should be the source of the funding. Tapping rewards will harm Steem, and put downwards pressure on price by making worse the problems we have with content quality (trending), and witnesses (many of whom barely, or do not, break even now) who we need to keep the blockchain secure. Decreasing incentive to witness is the last thing we should be doing.
I have said it better here. Please have a look and correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, let's not decrease rewards, but fund development directly from those that will benefit from it, without reducing incentive to produce other benefits essential to Steem.
Thanks!
Agreed
I agree, plus I would also like to see the needed inflation pulled from other places than only from author rewards. Pull some percentage from author, some from witness, and some from sp inflation.
I agree. While the proposal is great in general, I'm not sure if "Proposal funding to come from author rewards pool" is a good idea, especially if it really only comes from there. After all, this kind of major change should be decided by some votes. @dpoll is an option and I actually hope @blocktrades first build a good voting system on their own.
Please seem my comments to the parent comment you are replying to.
I'm with Dan here, the author pool is the community's life blood, while there are many whales who could easily cover these costs, especially if split among many.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah.... I dont think you would have a lot of success with the "donation" route. The distribution right now is extremely one sided, the richest accounts getting most of the STEEM, meaning that you can throw away any notion of the "community" donating anything.
Best you can hope for are donations from a extremely small number of, lets call them, charitable whales, like yourself, Blocktrades, Acid, etc.. But even those donations would remain extremely small.
I would rather go with the taking from the reward pool option..
If @blocktrades could maybe answer, how would a reduction of author payed inflation look like in relation to post payouts? The stats presented are overall token distribution.
If I'm not mistaking, what they are suggesting would result in a 20% reduction of post payouts across the board.
That's correct, assuming no resulting increase in Steem price (which is probably too much to hope for in the short term at least).
A 20% reduction in author rewards would devastate retention.
Please reconsider this. See my post here, and school me, or let's move forward without destroying the community we yet retain.
20% reduction. Holy crap! I uuh... wow. I might need to rethink a lot of things regarding Steem.
Wait, an aprox cut of 20% per post on author side?
I would like to suggest this tool to help during the
steemddevelopment process:How to do iterative steemd development on a local testnet
This is welcomed news. Glad you guys could work out an agreement.
I’m also happy to see that there won’t be new inflation. I think that’s the best decision for this. Now if we could only increase curation rewards for invested users, we may be able to get things heading in the right direction.
If author rewards are reduced by 20% wouldn't that massively disincentivize people from creating content? And as a result, wouldn't that also impact curation?
Seems like the only people who lose are the small fish... but that's fairly normal in society I guess - why would Steem be any different?
See my response to valued-customer.
Curation presently is nothing more than rent seeking. It's destroying trending, and trickling downhill to take Steem out as well.
Curation rewards is the reason bidbots exist, and that content quality has practically no relation to author rewards.
Perhaps the best thing we could do would be to replace curation rewards with SPS funding completely. No one needs to be paid to upvote good posts, and we see this on every other social media platform in the world.
Rent seeking is the reason retention is so dismal now, and getting worse. Make it worse yet by increasing curation rewards, and rule over massive piles of tokens no one will value at all.
No. Linear rewards, the delegation protocols, and the reduced daily vote target are the reason bid-bots exist. But as usual, nobody ever wants to acknowledge that. Instead, people would rather whine about how everything is still “unfair” and that invested users shouldn’t be allowed to earn from their investment.
The same is true about posting on social media: it happens on every other social media platform in the world. So why should authors here expect to be paid?
But tell me why users ought to buy/hold STEEM and power it up if there’s no incentive to do so and the tokens are only flowing out of the system to people who want to “get paid for blogging.” What do you suppose would happen to prices if invested users could no longer earn from their investment and how would that affect all of these bloggers who think that they aren’t paid enough for posts that mostly go unnoticed and unread?
Instead of making absurd claims about “rent-seeking,” maybe try understanding economics and investing a bit more. It also wouldn’t hurt to learn about the protocol history and many of the discussions that have taken place here for the past three years. A lot of the things you complain about were predicted...and some of it is directly related to the reduction of curation rewards.
Here...you can find some explanations and discussions dating back to early 2017 in this post and those linked in it:
https://steemit.com/steem/@ats-david/improved-curation-rewards-are-still-a-necessity
I appreciate your substantive reply. I do agree with some of your points, but not your general thesis (if I am grasping it).
Because the legacy model of social media centralizes emuneration of user created content, and creating the Steem model that should handily and rapidly render them utterly obsolete, due to the recognition that it is content created by users that imbues platforms with value, and users choosing to receive that value rather than simply exist for the benefit of overlords. Kinda a simple concept, really.
This actually ignores the previous point: that the value of the content springs from those very users that create it, and emunerating them for it reflects not only that, but creates strong motivation to adopt Steem by those that create the value of social media, the users. If Steem cannot flourish by creating a market that emunerates creators that imbue Steem with value, then the model in place is entirely retarded. I note that Steem seems to be only pretty retarded, as it hasn't perished yet. It sure can do better, and precluding free market exchange by locking up tokens via SP is less necessary as the market grows. There is certainly sound reason to use such gimmicks when establishing a nascent platform, and traditional investing shows that such vesting isn't novel to Steem.
Regarding what would happen to prices if investors were relegated to capital gains to profit from their investments, just as all investments throughout history have done, I note that would depend on the gains generated by the investment. I have made the analogy before, but allowing investors to snipe the vast majority of the products of the vehicle is asinine and completely counterproductive to the goal of generating capital gains. If this was a broom factory instead of a content mill, letting investors take most of the brooms before the company could sell them to generate profits would be easily recognized as insane. Letting investors snag the majority of rewards, which is what is happening, is directly preventing rewards from reaching users, and inhibiting growth which produces capital gains.
As for implying that creators are unrealistic for expecting rewards commensurate to the value of their posts, there is a bit of truth to that, but it's far more realistic to recognize that the creation market is failing to grow and generate capital gains because rewards are being monopolized through rent seeking behaviour, through bidbots, self votes, circle jerks, etc. Instead of sneering at the poor who expect to be compensated for being the market Steem needs to succeed, and who vote with their feet, effecting an extremely poor retention rate for Steem, reasonably attract the actual market with nominal rewards to keep them engaged and creating value in Steem.
Instead of mocking my fair representation of bidbots and curation that only cares about ROI, which is certainly the definition of rent seeking, you could note that trending shows that the extant situation regarding curation is that it could hardly degrade content quality less than it does. There is almost no correlation between content quality and rewards. That is not the fault of creators, but of rent seeking profiteers.
You know it's broken, and getting worse. Retention continues to decrease. Steem price is little more than BTC's tail, only following the general market for crypto rather than generating value through it's use case - which is orders of magnitude more valuable than it's competitors. The reason is that creation is denigrated rather than compensated, and substantial stake holders virtually completely ignore anything except ROI for their stake - the very definition of rentier income.
Curation rewards are the bizarro world mechanism to generate capital gains, the exact opposite of how to create growth, a robust market, and profit.
Pretend that capital gains haven't successfully motivated investors for thousands of years, and that curation rewards diminishing author rewards, which provide direct incentive to create the content that is the only source of value for Steem, will improve it, yet ignore that actual data produced by the actual market for Steem. You do you.
But don't expect Steem to moon when whales are seizing the means of production from actual producers, who are staying away in droves, and then decreasing the incentive for those producers even more by eschewing the model that has been employed to fund development to date (Stinc spent it's stake to fund development) and taxing author rewards to do so. That's just silly.
I would like someone to respond to the following point, because I have felt the same way and need to hear a counter-argument that makes sense if I am to change my mind on it.
Yeah, I have a response to that...
This isn’t a broom factory and there is no “company” selling anything in order to generate profit.
For some reason, he seems to believe that there is an entity taking stuff from one group and selling it to others. The problem is, if this were even happening (which it is not), it would be authors “taking” rewards (tokens) without any investment or risk - and that have monetary value due to investors/speculators - and then indiscriminately selling those tokens at market prices, driving down those prices and any chance at capital appreciation for investors
In other words: the analogy doesn’t actually apply to anything happening here, but if it did, it would apply to the exact opposite group than the one that the commenter continually marginalizes.
Thank-you for the response. That answer seemed to have opened a can of worms, so perhaps you wouldn't mind answering some more questions:
If there IS no company/product, then what the heck are people "investing" in? Generally, there is some form of business taking place that investors feel could grow their money as the business grows.
If the ONLY business taking place is similar to a bond or interest-bearing bank account, where you lend money so that someone else can use it; who is the borrower paying the interest and why would they?
If inflation is the source of all "income" then there really isn't any income, is there? The numbers get bigger, but the value goes down.
Why bother writing anything at all then? Just get 2 accounts and vote for each other on 1-word posts, 10 times per day.
How would that work?.. Replacing curation with SPS funding?
I always found curation to be an extremely flawed concept detrimental to the platform with the current status quo.
With this proposal cutting author rewards we could essentially remove bot influence completely and make proof of brain an actual thing..
When Kevin Wong made his god-awful curation proposal couple months ago that would essentially destroy STEEM as a whole, he called for a increase in curation which would have led to increased bot influence after adjustment..
This could possibly do the opposite... Could change the STEEM philosophy across the board.
Replacing curation with SPS funding sounds good to me. I bet it doesn't sound good to those seeking rent for their stakes by delegating to bidbots though.
It remains true that Stinc has funded development from it's stake heretofore, and I note that complainers weren't donating their stakes to contribute to development. Well, now it's time. Stinc has spent down the stake some, and those as stakes are substantial need to start ponying up - not taxing minnows and redfish for development money.
Wanna kill Steem? Decrease author rewards substantially while we're already losing accounts at a horrible rate. I can understand why they don't want to spend their stakes - they work so hard to grow them - to fund development, but it looks as if they've forced Stinc to allow them to undertake it just the same.
Thanks!
Well if we are changing the distribution of rewards we might as well increase the curation rewards while we're at it.
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree. I have been asking for this for two years. Good luck getting all of the beggars, moochers, and socialists to support that.
Hey! Neat news! Looks like you came in on the lower side of 50-100k unless it goes the full 2 months.
It is nice to see STEEMit inc engaging in more constructive and progressive projects with such a great development team. Payment in SBD as a more stable currency is a cool concept. Opening new proposals to the community is a great way of not only having a way of votring in the best projects but leveraging the coding talent of STEEM community as as well.
Awesome stuff! Can't wait to see this come into action.
MISter PICKLEman !!!! Why.. TAKE that Pickle out of your your step sister's inner thigh RIGHT this instance! THATS IT! Im deducting 10 Sleep points from you, and ill be assigning teh debt using 10 Pocket Tokens
pocketsend:10@zekepickleman
Successful Send of 10
Sending Account: ackza
Receiving Account: zekepickleman
New sending account balance: 995773
New receiving account balance: 9
Fee: 1
Steem trxid: 9907d5ffa1916dcb68272387d74774acbfb45900
Thanks for using POCKET! I am running this confirmer code.
Cryptic and interesting!
Posted using Partiko iOS
Pay up to $110K to build a proposal. That's what has been announced. Not a community effort at finding solutions for incentivizing people to work on Steem. Not even an open bid process... just another decision to be rammed down our throats. This Hail Mary requires a future consensus of Witnesses... which likely won't be hard to acquire because Steem is extremely centralized.
Author rewards is also where beneficiary rewards come from that many app developers have calculated in to their business models. Who other than Steemit is intent to do as little as possible work and is willing to slash the reward pool to shirk their workload on the blockchain? Can't even write your own hard forks now? At least @blocktrades thinks they can deliver in a timely fashion. throws hands in the air
Ur right. 110K for a PROPOSAL, NOT a solution. What a waste!!!!!!!
I think you have misunderstood here. The word 'proposal' refers to the nature of the system being created - it is a system that manages proposals.
@blocktrades unfortunately If author reward drop more we have to power down and leave steemit forever already authors are suffering from much crisis i was owning 30k$ and Steem whales sold steem and my asset value drop hard every author already is in crisis THis decision will crash steem market more Very bad team of steemit i guess
@lays, right, the author reward is already bad. If it gets even less, what incentive should an author have to create new content?
Reducing author rewards by ~20% seems significant. Couldn't this be spread out amongst the various categories?
Since a large portion of the curation and interest rewards go to large-stakeholders (I'm assuming it does... I haven't checked) and the fact that the witness percentage goes to a MUCH smaller pool of individuals, my gut is saying that the more equitable way to find the ~11% share for the SPS would be something more in line with:
Considering that Witnesses and Large stakeholders have the most to gain from improvements to the backend, shouldn't they be investing into the SPS? Taking all of it from the author reward pool seems to be more like 'taxing' the userbase. But I could be way off here.
Either way, I think the SPS is a good idea. But I feel like the request for payment is being directed to the wrong pool of people.
It reminds me a bit of "DCC"s (Development Cost Charges) related to subdivision and municipal infrastructure development that we deal with at work.
Land developers make money by creating houses and communities, but it also requires the City owned infrastructure (water, sewer, etc...) to be developed to service the communities they'd like to build. Since there is a large profit incentive for developers to create these communities, portions of the munipal infrastructure (SPS) is funded by those who benefit the most (large SP holders, witnesses, etc), because it's unfair to place 100% of the funding burden on the tax-base.
Just a thought.
EDIT:
To clarify -- I understand that the ~11% of rewards is for funding the SPS once developed and ready. I think the point still stands, since the projects that will be funded by the SPS are still ultimately building value in to the entire ecosystem (and predominantly, large stakeholders will benefit) -- the SPS pool should be funded, at least in part, by those that have the most to gain.
Taking purely from the author side of things is crazy. There is a 100% pool to pull from, spread out the costs to everyone.
Why decrease rewards at all? Rewards exist to provide incentive to create value that inures to Steem. Decrease rewards, decrease the value of Steem.
SPS will fund development, and that development will be intended to increase the price of Steem, creating capital gains and increasing the value of stake. Funding for SPS should be drawn from stake directly, rather than decreasing incentive to create value in Steem, and this hit's all stakeholders equally, from redfish to whales. It also potentiates capital gains for all equally according to the stake that capital gains will impact.
Retention is a horror show presently, and decreasing author rewards by almost 10%... I don't even... Well, any decrease in author rewards will decrease retention more, and we are not growing now. Many witnesses are barely breaking even, or not at all, now. Witnesses will flee in droves if we drop their rewards almost 5%, leaving the blockchain much less secure. Decreasing witness rewards is the last thing we want to do.
I disagree that SPS should be funded by decreasing rewards at all, but what you propose is at least better than the scorched Earth 20% proposed above.
Let's just eliminate curation rewards completely. It's just rent seeking anyway, and has no relation to content quality. In fact there is an inverse relationship between increased curation rewards and increased content quality. The more profitable curation is, the more is delegated to bidbots, and the more curation is just ROI without any consideration for content quality.
Eliminate curation rewards completely, and the only reason people would vote would be to reward quality content.
I could live with that.
Yes I like this a lot better!
I think some thought should be put towards whatever the split is -- I was just tossing some numbers out there as a starting point. I would imagine that there's some kind of comfortable and sustainable middle ground that everyone could agree on.
Whether or not it ends up being addressed is another story. I wouldn't hold my breath -- at the end of the day, stake tends to win here. And those with stake tend to do what they can to protect and increase their stake.
Everyone always wants to take from someone else's pie, I like that you would have everyone give a piece of their pie to the betterment of steem blockchain.
Agreed!
Could be a great option! Hope that they will put this on the table too!
Now we are going to pull a golos?
It may work, golos is looking a lot better.
We still need to bring back proof of brain, though.
really now? think that golos is gonna still move to eos brother?
I don't know, i cant get golos info in English.
right click your blank briowser screen space, hit "trranslate tpo english" using chrome or i be;lieve firefox... works great
This story was recommended by Steeve to its users and upvoted by one or more of them.
Check @steeveapp to learn more about Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface.
100K for a code change is to much...Even if it is an excelent ideia!!!That´s more that excelent startup get for an entire year...Taking reward from people who invested, create intelectual content and develop communitys almost for free...To give to these guys you are already whales and receiving a lot of STEEM from their "exchange", witness program, and inflation...It´s a total abuse ask 100K in a bear market and STEEM total marketcap is 90M...Why don´t we do public "auction" for the code changes to see who can make it cheaper? In fact i find the value offensive to the comunity....Remember you are giving 100K to whales at very low prices of STEEM...Centralization is a bad game for price...They as we have interest in this upgrade...Can´t we do it with a lower budget!? I believe we can...