- Downvotes should be welcomed equally as upvotes are. The code change wouldn't do much, we need a mental state change on this. As @lukestokes brought up recently, UI flag representation of downvote carries a negative connotation, and often taken as a personal attack. I think the flag should be changed into a downvote in a UI level. People should welcome downvotes as they do upvotes, and use them a community feedback on their posts. If this matter is not made a big deal of, downvoters usually get tired of using their SP and move on.
- 50/50 author/curator reward sounds interesting. That probably will encourage a lot more curating activity, however, in my opinion, they will be whales setting up bots to maximize their returns. The 5-minute limit also would be beneficial fot that purpose. I don't think it would increase manual curating. I do agree though, even if authors will get 50% since more upvotes start coming in they end up with higher rewards.
- Vote selling/buying, SP delegation selling/buying, etc are in my opinion short sighted doings of whales/investors. While I have no problem with their existence, and I agree they do serve some purpose and there is demand for them. But in a long-term goal point of view these services don't do any good for investors/whales, they make the platform less appealing. Whales/investors should be more concerned with the long term increase in Steem's value. That is where they will get their handsome returns, not with little profits of selling votes, renting SP.
- Long-term handsome return will come if whales/investors change their focus on making this platform work for everybody, and make it appealing for outsiders to join and make it an attractive investment for future investors. This cannot be solved with code. This can be solved with change of focus. I suggest instead of selling votes/renting SP, why don't you guys support existing curators, curation guilds etc. Hire your own curators, share the curation rewards. I will make an offer right now. Delegate me your SP, I will give back 60% of curating rewards. I can promise not to use on self-upvotes, and only curate on posts that actually bring some value to the platform. Better yet, create some rules and guidelines for what kind of curating you expect. I bet there are ton of experienced curators out there that would make similar deals. This is called partnership, this is called long term plan, this is called make it work for everybody. If more of whales/investors embraced this kind of approach, I bet they wouldn't regret when their investments increased in value 10 or 100 fold.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It'll be both. The thing is that whales already set up these bots or sell votes or delegate for pay. It makes sense to do on a whale scale even with smaller rewards. What doesn't currently make sense (as evidenced by the relative lack of people doing it) is humans spending time on careful curation.
Increasing the curation reward split might have a small effect on increasing incentives for bots, but it would have a large effect on incentives for real, careful curation. So the relative shift is in favor of the latter.
That's good wishful thinking but you can't really change how people think or act just by making statements about what other people 'should' do. What we can do is change the rules of the system such that it encourages better behavior. This post is an attempt to propose some such changes.
Yes, you are right. It is easy for people like me make statements. I am glad this conversation is happening. I am excited of possibility of something positive coming out this. Hey, Steem price is rising already :)
Thanks for a thoughtful comment.
I think we can agree that anything that costs people money isn't going to be welcomed, except as it adds value. Most folks don't care much for criticism, at least not anywhere near as much as they do money.
I think it can. Code can incentivize any desired behaviour, or disincentivize it.
Thanks!
I have had the rather serendipitous opportunity to receive my very first flags evar since I first replied to your comment.
I confess to first feeling some shock, as no matter how inflammatory my bloviations had been, I had not before been flagged.
However, I did actually come to view it as a positive thing - which is really, really weird and counterintuitive. I was flagged by a 'professional flagger' who was trying to censor my views.
I consider it a badge of honor =D
Anyway, just here to eat my earlier words =p