I suspect curation bots will likely continue to upvote popular authors as their main strategy, because I think it's challenging to create a bot that has enough intelligence to do much more. I do think these rules will put human curators on a more even footing when competing for the rewards on such posts. But nowadays the root problem of curation is related to the small number of actively working human curators with enough SP to impact a post's performance and I think this can directly be traced back to the fact that it is not very profitable to curate.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think once curating becomes more profitable, more users would put effort on the manual curating. But then again, this can also lead to new bots with more complex intelligence.
If Steem incentivized the creation of bots able to understand the quality of posts as well as a human, Steem would become instantly famous in the world.
I sort of don't want this last comment of yours to go unnoticed. It may well be the most important, more so even than your suggestions.
If there were significant incentives for bot creators to compete to make bots more and more effective at content curation, that would be an unimaginable have changer!
steemit
Well, @ned made several delegations of $500k recently, IIRC, and but one of the delegates didn't begin self-voting or selling votes, and kudos to @surpassinggoogle for that.
So, he withdrew the delegations to all but @surpassinggoogle, and is now considering (so I hear) making more, but smaller delegations.
https://steemit.com/voteselling/@stellabelle/dear-freedom-and-whales-here-s-a-sp-delegatee-menu-to-solve-the-vote-selling-problem
[full disclosure: I was nominated for a delegation in that post. This may make you suspect that I am biased. I have not received a delegation, so you can dispel that suspicion.]
Such small delegations might reward a self-voter with up to $5/day, far less incentive to self-vote than the $500/day @ned's original delegations made possible.
One of the recipients of these $5k delegations has voted over 1000 times in the last week (nearly 1200 IIRC). If those votes were worth $.10, then since the median post payout was $.01 for the last month, each of those votes was potentially ten times more than the author might have generally expected from a post.
That such small votes are an order of magnitude larger than most people receive for their entire post is telling that the problem of distribution is terrible for new users.
It also shows that moderate delegations to the stake of many curators can deeply impact krill, and perhaps affect retention.
$5M in such delegations would allow 1k curators to impact up to 10k accounts with 100% upvotes each day, with up to 50 times the author rewards krill receive currently per post.
This is a significant improvement over current distribution, and would be likely to strongly impact user retention.
However, @fulltimegeek and @stellabelle did not make these delegations for a fee. They are perhaps not seeking anything other than to improve the platform. If this effort improves user retention, then that should put upward price pressure on Steem, potentiating capital gains for investors.
I reckon this is an effective and promising experiment.
Glad you are still curating manually those who are on the bottom and not using a curation bot.