RE: Max posting rewards for small investors will create an incentive to invest in STEEM
This is an interesting concept, but what would that mean for anyone starting off on the platform? The only way to earn beyond a few Steem would be to buy in and power up. Currently, you can join and earn a large reward on the merit of your post (at least that's how it's supposed to work).
Do you think this would add validity to an argument that Steem/Steemit would then be a ponzi scheme? We already hear arguments like that without there being any need to buy and hold Steem or Steem Power.
Other than that, it sounds like a good idea. Realistically, there should probably have been caps on rewards anyway, given some of the payouts we've seen in the past. Thinking ahead - when Steemit may have a million or more active users - I'm not sure that we would need to worry much about caps at all. With more widespread distribution of SP, I can't foresee even the top posts ever breaking $100. This is just speculation, but I'd imagine that most of the top posts would be getting closer to $10.
Exactly.
Source: Steemit FAQ
I had the same question about @mughat's idea. But maybe it can be addressed in some way. Perhaps the cap would need to be 80% of the account value. Or maybe it's not really an issue.
But if two completely independently people came to the same conclusion, is that an indicator of something?
Or maybe 200% of the account value. Something to experiment with.
That makes a lot of sense. If it's capped to more than the investment, who could argue it's a scam? And that cap also prevents ridiculous payouts. Ok, I'm on board. Let's do this.
Hi again, @ats-david,
Your comment makes it clear to me that I need to study and have a better understanding of the basic Steemit rewards algorithm...
In a "perfect world," I would imagine (he says, placing wishful thinking hat firmly on head now) that something like the following would be highly motivating to content creators:
Stipulating that the payout algorithms work as you've briefly described here and are headed downward, I can see people who write for a hobby, or simply for the joy of it coming and staying "on board." I can see them being quite happy with $100 slipping to $10 for a good post. I for one expect to stick around on a part-time basis and watch Steemit grow, while getting to know fellow authors and interested readers.
But what about people who write for a living? Columnists make ~$60k/year, and syndicated columnists can make between $4 and $35 per insertion per newspaper in which they are published. (SOURCE) Even with the decline of newspapers (about 13k in the US in 2014, down from about 18k in 1980 (SOURCE), that could mean really big $$ for the top columnists like Dave Barry, etc.
It seems to me that excellent content is necessary to attract a huge readership, and that outstanding writers are needed to create that content. How will the prospect of small diminishing to trivial payouts attract and keep the best writers? Particularly those who write as a vocation, devoting all their time to the work?
IMHO, the payout algorithm needs to have a better correlation with the actual readership in the long run. Especially for the regular "Big Following" and the once-in-a-blue-moon "Viral Post" cases.
Thanks in advance for any corrective comments any of you may have for my understanding. ;)