You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Regulating Curation on SteemIt
Incentives matter. No argument there. As it stands now, minnows receive no curation rewards. We need incentives to reward creating quality content, and ideally, a reward mechanism for flagging the spam, plagiarism, and abuse in the system.
I think the 75/25 split is probably about right. 50/50 is skewed to reward whales and bots. Perhaps 90/10 is overkill, but I for one curate without really trying to game the system for profit.
And that's the crux of it. Which do you think is likely to bring minnows into the curation game earlier? Give them 50% or give them 10%?
I'd rather have 10,000 minnows curating than a single whale with the same Steem Power. And I'd rather have either of those than having that Steem sitting on the exchanges in liquid form.
Delegating to plankton has a bigger effect on curation than any other ploy. The problem is finding the people who will invest time in delegation and who will hold onto the SP.
I wrote a post on how on could created a program for dedicated curators that would reward avid curators while encouraging both the curators and authors to hold SP.
It does make a little sense the way things stand now. Newcomers need to create in order to earn the power to curate. Curators need to work more to find new creators to curate. I'm not placing myself on a pedestal here. I need to work more, too. However, I do focus my efforts on curating a number of posts from small-time players and rarely upvote anyone big except for @papa-pepper.
No amount of algorithm shuffling can change people. We need to set an example for the minnows by curating, commenting, and engaging. We need to proactively hunt the spammers and plagiarists, too. This matters far more than shuffling the reward pool to further cut off minnows from posting rewards they already struggle to earn as it is.