Because like I said in OP, voting for the content that I like means I would have to sacrifice some rewards. There is no way currently to ally both upvoting the post I like and profit which is why I proposed a solution to re-align incentives.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I wish to understand why curation rewards hold such high priority. I view curation as a gift, not a means to earn. I personally write and comment to engage and earn.
Curation rewards determine the quality of content . If you get the curation incentives wrong you get shit content.
But the curation rewards you're delegating to a bot are being blindly assigned to whoever pays for it, unless it's some type of guild arrangement. That means that any junk that qualifies with the minimum amount of words can be upvoted by you indirectly. I'm not sure I follow your logic, completely respectfully said. If you've delegated to something like @curie or ocd, that's a bit different, and worth clarifying.
That's exactly my point. If you get the curation incentives wrong you get shit content. I have no incentive to curate properly which is why my voting power is used to upvote shit content.
Appreciate the reply. We have completely different values and it appears that you're sticking to your guns. Nothing more I can say, but thanks for being honest and handling your responses well.
To each their own, but perhaps you may reflect on whether it'll ever be worth putting people first with a certain percentage of your means. It doesn't have to all be the bottom line of an income statement to be the most valuable if you see that we're all people, not profit centers.
Your post was a great learning experience for me.
It's purely economic, that's the point. The logic is simply based on return, not on quality. Since what gets rewarded is de facto quality in the steemit system, @snowflake is able to say "Curation rewards determine the quality of content".
The problem they are highlighting is that it is more worth while for them to sell votes than it is for them to curate with attention because the incentives (read: rewards) favor that in the current system. So - change the system.
You might recall our conversation on this issue from some months ago. I'm glad to see you're more open to the idea now.
I don't remember in what way I have changed my tune. Do you have an example? See my root comment response for more detail on what I actually think, and not an explanatory response to someone.
My recollection is that you and @l0k1 (who sadly, seems to have dropped off the ends of the Earth) were focusing on self voting, and my argument (which remains delinking SP from VP) involved changing the code, which you felt unnecessary at the time.
That was months ago, and I may misrecall, or have misunderstood your position.
I agree with @steemmatt. From my observations, a big chunk of the paid bot upvotes goes to content that is of low quality (posts that are shit).
That's not shitposts but posts that are shit.
Thanks! I edited it :)