x
x
4 years ago in #steem by remlaps (65)
$3.68
- Promotion Cost $5.00
- Past Payouts $3.68
- - Author $1.84
- - Curators $1.83
81 votes
- yabapmatt: $1.28
- spectrumecons: $0.61
- adsup: $0.38
- whatsup: $0.28
- cub1: $0.26
- remlaps1: $0.15
- tongchat27: $0.12
- zuerich: $0.09
- svamiva: $0.09
- webdeals: $0.06
- joshman: $0.05
- miti: $0.04
- cmp2020: $0.03
- gadrian: $0.02
- b00m: $0.02
- flamingirl: $0.02
- bigbot: $0.02
- mosquito76: $0.01
- schlafhacking: $0.01
- disregardfiat: $0.01
- and 61 more
An upvote for my fellow steemizen.
; -) Thank you for reading it!
What an excellent and thoughtful list.
I think you have my 90% agreement.
I appreciate the feedback! I hope other readers are similarly agreeable. ; -)
Hey! Steemizen makes sense. Many awesome ideas here. Bookmarking. I really appreciate the thought that has gone into this and agree with most of it.... @riverflows (too tired to switch acccounts)
Thank you for the reply! I am happy that you found it worthwhile to bookmark.
I enjoyed the read and never thought of the difference between steemizens & steemians. Lots of interesting points here. Resteemed.
Thanks for the feedback and the resteem. I'm glad you liked it.
Of course! I just hate i caught it 6 days later
My bad.
I disagree with number eight if you're trying to say that there is such a thing as bad publicity which a link could provide. I quote people. I include a link. I do this all the time. It is like a commercial. Ronald McDonald performs at birthday parties for free. Because marketing is valuable. That is what a link is. In other words, a link is a plug. It is valuable. That is why companies pay millions of dollars for ad time on television, on YouTube, on billboards, etc, as opposed to television shows giving the corporations money.
Thanks for the reply! On number 8, I'm not referring to bad publicity. Basically, I just mean that people should get credited for their work and ideas. For an example of what I mean, you can look at the beneficiary settings for cited authors in any of the posts from my daily Science & technology digest series.
You're right that linking to someone can be valuable, so if it's just a mention, and my sole intention is to draw attention to someone's post, then maybe I don't need to assign a beneficiary for them. But if I'm harnessing their creativity and using it to draw rewards for myself, then I think that a beneficiary setting is appropriate. I guess there is a sort-of a grey area as to exactly how much incorporation of ideas is enough to merit reward sharing.
intresting, added to my memories to read it carefully later. awesome post, up!
Thanks. I appreciate the feedback!
Excellent Comments
Your post has been curated by the bitcoin myk project. Tokens are available for this account you can trade for steem at: https://steem-engine.com/. Join our curation priority list to earn more tokens by registering at:
http://www.bitcoinmyk.com/register/
Visit our discord at: https://discordapp.com/channels/523971711733858364/523971711733858366
Bitcoin MYK
admin
Register - Bitcoin MYK
This post earned 50 BTCMYK
Maybe I should try to minimize the internet use and spend some time with friends and this applies to minors too. Because it is important to have your children to be always monitored especially in the internet for there are many cyberhackers in the internet and everyone should be warned about this.
Thanks for the feedback! I actually think that most of the downvotes are well-intentioned. To me, the problem is mostly in the way people perceive them. We can tell people not to take it personally until we're blue in the face, but it still feels personal to most people.
The other side to that, though, is that there needs to be some other incentive (like a second price auction style of mechanism) penalizing people for overvaluing a post and encouraging people to vote honestly. IMO, the last two years proved that you can't just disable downvotes - without any other changes - and expect that posts are going to be ranked in any sort of rational manner.
Yeah, I don't know the history, but I don't see anything in your comments on this post that deserved to be downvoted, so I can't explain it. That also falls under the honest voting heading. IMO, over-rewarding and over-penalizing are both big problems for the health of the blockchain and for the overall satisfaction level for participants. I think that over-penalizing might be the worse of the two.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, especially the advocacy for non-blogging uses for the blockchain.
but I also like the idea of stake-weighted voting, and I wouldn't support removing downvotes without putting some other mechanism in place to disincentivize every voter from just blindly maxing out their own rewards.
I'm hoping that as Steem-engine and SMT tokens evolve, they'll make room for all sorts of experimentation with rules and incentives in order to discover all the different use cases, and also drive improvements in the quality of people's voting.
I was there for the whale experiment. It ran from March 2017 to HF19, which was in June/2017. Well before most of the price run-up. Also, as I recall, the whole point of that experiment was to simulate the linear reward curve, which HF21/22 just removed because of community dissatisfaction, so it's not clear how informative that experiment really was. The price rally in winter '17 was also correlated with BTC at 20K, which I think was far more relevant. As this chart from Yahoo finance shows, the price rise seemed to have little to do with the whale experiment. The whole crypto market was up.
You're right about flags redistributing rewards, but that doesn't necessarily make up for the psychological effect that flags have on people. It's pure speculation to suggest that the positive and negative emotions are in balance. In general, people prioritize loss avoidance over pursuing benefits (coincidentally, I just read an article on this. See link #2 here ).
Anyway, that wasn't the point of that item. I agree that we can't eliminate downvotes without implementing a different reward mechanism to incentivize self-regulation of voting strength, and it certainly wouldn't be a good idea to experiment with that on the main Steem blockchain now. It'll have to wait 'til SMTs or steem-engine tokens (or some other chain) can experiment with other reward algorithms. I specifically acknowledged that I'm in the minority and downvotes are here to stay. The point of that item was to merely to suggest moderation as a norm when downvoting over reward disagreement.
Thanks for the reply! There was definitely a positive mood about the linear curve around the time of HF19, so you might be right that it encouraged people to power up in the early-middle part of 2017. Philosophically, I still like the idea that voting strength was exactly proportionate to stake, so it's a shame that people eventually found so many ways to game it.