RE: Bloggers: Would you mind sharing 50/50 with those that upvote you?
Will not work - my response to Trafalgar here.
Pasted below.
(Consider firstly) 80% of the reward pool is going to plankton, minnows and dolphins. This is far better most economies of the world.
There appear to be many orcas and whales happy to spread the love.
Communities are popping up all over the place.
Once SMTs arrive many Steemians will care more about other tokens than a Steem utility token anyway.
But the main drawback in your idea - why would anyone want to post when they are only receiving 50% of the reward showing on their post? This would turn more people off than it would attract. If anything 25% of the reward is too much.
It also won't solve anything - if the bad actors want 100% - your plan just means they don't have to work as hard to get it.
I don't see any problems here that won't fix themselves with the natural redistribution of Steem as people come and go, plus the introduction of SMTs.
I think you are wrong about communities too. They make a big difference.
A single whale can't change the whole system. But they can make a difference to many. And with discount accounts they can now start onboarding them too.
I really haven't followed your career here since the days of the Steem Wars - but Team Australia is still going strong and now SteemChurch too and this is just what I am doing.
If you genuinely want to make a difference and build the value of your investment - get on the ground and use your capital to create opportunities for the newbies. (Perhaps you are - I just don't know so sorry if I am wrong.)
Cheers.
SirKnight.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
Upvoted to counter the downvotes. Because why not?
Upvoted simply because you are awesome @emrebeyler.
Posted using Partiko Android
I want to disagree..
50% of 100 dollars is more than 75% of 10 dollars... 25% might not be enough for most voters to be incentivised to vote more on content they see... as I wrote further down I am more concerned with people then voting for garbage as 50% could be enough incentive to do so... so there should be some idea to attract people to high quality content...
I don't understand where you are getting these numbers from solarwarrior.
Regardless- there are good whales who spread love and think of the long term success of the platform - and there are those looking for short term gain at the expense of the platform. 25/75 or 50/50 makes no difference to their behaviour anyway.
But over time the influence of the bad actors will be dilluted as they sell to the good actors.
So don't change the system and is my advice.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
I assume (and yes it is just an assumption) that 50/50 will increase the motivation to vote enormously...
of course I can not proof it... but just look how many people create self voted garbage.. hence I believe there is a high likelyhood they say.. hmm. yes.. 50/50 is fair... I am getting paid for my interaction... so lets do it
It increases the incentive to vote but also (by design) shifts the incentive away from voting for yourself (100% under any of these setups) and closer to voting for others 50% vs. the current 25%. Voting for others is still smaller, but by a lesser degree. We expect more downvotes on (a baseline smaller number of) exploitative self votes and vote selling to make up the rest of the difference, unleasing a large wave of new votes for the purpose of curating and rewarding.
agree
It shifts the incentive away from voting for yourself by insisting that a higher minimum percentage of your votes is used to reward yourself.
This continues to be nonsensical at every turn.
When voting for yourself, 100% goes to yourself. It can't be any higher than that.
What matters here is the balance between the alternatives. Both 50% and the current 25% are clearly still less than 100%, but 50% is a lot closer. Therefore balancing the incentives becomes more within reach at 50%.
A more extreme alternative would be 90%. At this point the benefit to self voting is only 1.1x and far less likely to be worth it. We'd likely see hardly any farming/self-voting at that point because it wouldn't be worth the risk of getting your trash downvoted for that extra 10% when you could be an average or even slightly below average curator, find some non-garbage and go vote on it.
We're in favor of 50% because (unlike say 90%) it is a moderate and the pain in terms of author reduction is relatively modest (33% reduction) relative to the increase in curation (100% increase) and therefore it is a number that has a good "return on investment" (using that phrase figuratively) when it comes to shifting of incentives.
I don't understand where you are getting these numbers from solarwarrior.
Regardless- there are good whales who spread love and think of the long term success of the platform - and there are those looking for short term gain at the expense of the platform. 25/75 or 50/50 makes no difference to their behaviour anyway.
But over time the influence of the bad actors will be dilluted as they sell to the good actors.
So don't change the system is my advice.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoted to counter the boomerang vote. Comments shouldn't be artificially boosted. @phoneinf
Hello @therealwolf and @phoneinf. A pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Just so we are clear - this Knight does not use bidbots or buy votes etc. So either the manager of boomerang liked my comment (who wouldn't really) - or someone else liked it enough to nominate it for reward.
This Knight is not concerned about the downvote - he is however concerned about his reputation as Steem's most LEGENDARY blogger... who doesn't use bidbots.
I am... SirKnight.
Upvoted for entertainment and charisma, but downvoted the above since wolf's downvote looks smaller than boomerang and I agree that paid votes on these sorts of comments are dumb.
@sirknight, please copy/paste in the thread to keep it organized, please.
Done.
Posted using Partiko Android
Very good reasoning, @sirknight, and I would like to add two more points to it:
It is hard to believe authors of a quality content would fare better with 33% less reward, while the number of votes is still limited.
A rule of a thumb would be: More curation rewards, more of the reward pool goes to the bot operators. That would hardly stimulate authors or even new members.
I still think that the greatest improvement to the system would be an implementation of bot-checking system, or we shall soon have…
This is stellar, thank you.
Thank you tcpolymath - just presenting my view. SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
This post has received a 5.9 % upvote from @boomerang.
Thank you boomerang.
Because it is a lot more than the ZERO that they get if they don't post (other factors might enter into it such as legitimate posts getting more votes than before or Steem being less dysfunctional and returning to a growth trajectory, but we don't even need those to answer your question).
This is not true. It currently takes essentially NO work to self vote or sell votes. Can't get easier.
Down-voting SirKnight, up-voting SirKnight - very smooth Smooth.
This Knight has responded to these points previously, you will find the responses floating around blockchain.
This Knight's point has been made. If system changes he will adapt and so too will the communities he manages.
Again - SMTs will solve many of the problems that you and others are so concerned about.
More to the point - why the concern? Just keep building infrastructure, communities and discussion and the STEEM price will take care of itself.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
Steem is infrastructure. We work to improve it. That's why we have 20 hard forks already.
That doesn't discourage or dismiss all the other good work you mention. All working toward the same goals in different ways.
Hardfork 20 is fantastic! Thanks for all your hard work Mr Smooth.
Posted using Partiko Android