Let's talk about Steem
Prologue
If you are a content creator participating on Steem, you are well aware of the challenges the blockchain and its dApps are facing.
The idea that content would be the main drive behind the platforms built on Steem was both genius and very difficult to achieve. However, in many ways, it's an ingenious way of creating the network effect that any crypto project would require to succeed in the long term by distributing the currency as fairly as possible.
Now, Steem is succeeding at distributing the currency to as many people as possible in a way that no-other blockchain-project has done before or is currently doing. But the goal of rewarding creators for their content isn't possible with the current state of Steem.
However, in the very near future, changes will come to Steem that could very well attract and retain millions of users to Steem.
With that said - let's get into the details. And starting off with one of the most important ones: voting based on account instead of stake.
1 Account = 1 Vote
You might have already seen the video with @ned and @theoretical in which they explain coming possible changes to Steem which are part of :
- 1 Account = 1 Vote
- Oracles
- SMTs
If you haven't watched the video, I strongly recommend to do it, in order to better understand this post:
Alright, and to understand why account voting is such a big deal - let me take a selfie let me first explain what's wrong with the current system.
The current system is flawed
.. at least for content creators.
Steem is supposed to be THE alternative to other social media, which rewards its participators with cryptocurrencies.
One thing @ned very often says is that Steem uses the proof of brain algorithm, which makes sure that content quality is crowdsourced and revenue is determined based on the intelligence of the crowd.
At least that's the plan in-theory..
The reality, however, looks quite different.
Problem: Stakeweighted Voting
The reality is that Steem very much resembles the real world, in the sense that not everyone's opinion is worth the same.
Example: @ned is the CEO of Steemit Inc and has millions of Steempower, but this fact shouldn't give his opinion hundred-thousand times more weight in terms of the subjective rating of content in comparison to the average user.
Imagine what would have happened if Warren Buffet, who is openly opposed to Bitcoin - would be on Steem and were to downvote every post related to cryptocurrencies and upvote every post that would slender the legibility of them.
Important: Now, don't get me wrong. I'm 100% in favour of stake-voting for decisions regarding the blockchain-level (Witness Approvals etc.) as the amount of stake in Steem goes hand in hand with the desire to make decisions that will let Steem grow and flourish.
But in regards to content voting - stake voting is a huge barrier, which is also driving away big creators who came to Steem from other platforms.
Big Content Creators: hello and bye
There are quite a lot of people who believe that the success of Steem relies on marketing and bringing more influencers to Steem.
But my personal opinion to that is as follows:
Don't do that .. yet.
Successful content creators from other platforms already came to Steem ... and left.
Example: Furious Pete (@furiouspete123)
Furious Pete is a huge youtube who came to Steem (and dtube) about 6 months ago.
Looking at the image above, Furious Pete got a huge following of 4.7 Million Subscribers and an average of 200k+ viewers per video.
Now, compare that to the data of his Steem (dtube account)
Not that bad in terms of Steem, but the amount of traffic, comments and legitimate upvotes he gets - is laughable in comparison to youtube.
Analyse Results
And his activity on Steem completely reflects that.
His latest video on dtube is actually just a re-upload of a 2 years old video on youtube.
And honestly: I can completely understand his reasoning - I would probably do the same thing if I were him.
Why would anybody, who is generating 200k views per video alone, invest any time into producing content for a platform, that is maybe generating around 100 views - roughly about 0.0005%.
Now, he is generating some revenue out of his activity on Steem, but this is not enough to justify the effort for custom videos which will not generate any views.
The Solution
Getting back to the main topic of this post: 1 Account = 1 Vote
I truly believe that this change, in addition with oracles, custom rewards-pools and SMTs, which will govern the uniqueness of account - will attract big content creators and most importantly: many, many users.
And on top of that, the new changes for account creation (which will make accounts nearly free) and the new bandwith credits will ensure that user growth isn't bottlenecked by account creations and bandwith limitations.
Every user - regardless of Steempower - should have a vote which has the same value as anybody else. And whoever tries to game this system (e.g. by using multiple accounts), should be punished by the oracles and/or incentivised to rather use one account.
But what about Stakeholders?
With that said: I also believe that stakeholders should be rewarded for their staked Steem (in form of Steempower).
One great post, which describes a possible solution, is: A simple, radical change to Steem that could fix most of our problems from @tcpolymath.
The summary of this post is as follows
- Rewarding stakeholders of Steem with a Proof of Stake algorithm
- Seperating the revenue for holding Steempower from the revenue generated out of content creation & curation.
I personally think that this change could go very well hand-in-hand with 1 Account = 1 Vote and I would be in favour of changes in that direction.
Epilogue
As a witness, steemian and stakeholder of Steem - I'm very excited for the coming changes.
Attracting and retaining users is crucial for the success and valuation of Steem.
With that said - let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Your witness,
therealwolf
Making Steem Greater
Projects developed by @therealwolf for Steem
| Smartsteem.com | Steem Chat-Wallet |
|---|---|
| Witness Essentials | Utopian.io Signup |
Do you share my vision for Steem? Let's work together to achieve it!
You can vote for me at https://steemit.com/~witnesses.
Or you can simply use steemconnect to vote for me or to set me as a proxy.
A big and sincere Thank you to all of those who support my efforts!
This is all nothing but a dream. We've been talking about SMT's and all this nonsense for how long now?
I cannot believe after as long as you've spent here you still expect the Steemit, inc. team to deliver anything of real value.
They haven't since Dan left. That's a fact.
Until there are developers other than the amateurs @ned hires contributing to the development of Steem, we're not going to see any significant changes.
Agree. The timeframe is stretched so much that it already seems like failing to deliver. Come on, other teams made complete new blockchains from scratch while st.Inc giving birth to HF20 alone.
You seem to be right, since I came here in the beginning of 2018, all I've seen was my investment turning to dust, while whales keep circle-jerking and STINC just talks and does nothing else.
There is no real correlation between the value of STEEM and the so-called quality of content (spoiler: it's shit in 95% of cases) that is advocated so much. No paid votes - no exposure - waste of time - creators leave. By now I wish I never came.
How can we expect this place to explode and go viral when new users can't even register easily? I invited some of my friends to join and each and every one run into a registration problem, I even had to buy one account myself after weeks of waiting. At the same time, bots come in in hundreds. It is so easy to fix (I'm saying that as a programmer), yet STINC have done nothing but putting a caption that a free registration means waiting for a couple of weeks. They still manage to fail to fix it.
How can we explain that, besides calling them what they are - amateurs, incompetent and uninterested in the accomplishing the goals.
Now they promise SMTs, communities, hivemind, you name it. Look at this, almost 5 months ago they were "about to introduce" those changes and they still haven't.
I'd really like to believe that success is just around the corner, but crypto space just keeps disappointing, especially steemit.
You should read the latest posts from @steemitblog.
Interesting, it's not as bad as I thought. They seem to actually work on it. Still, it doesn't invalidate the fact that there were no major improvements for more than half a year and steemit is still not appealing to the new users either visually or by functionality. Nor can they signup normally.
i like it when i get upvotes from you😢😢😢
First thing that attracted me to steemit was "quality of content". But then I realised the bots and their role. I was little dissapointed because it became all about upvoting and not focusing on content
Yes u are right. But without bots it is very difficult to atract people or to reach them. Even like this. I invested a small amount because i believe that that can help in the begining. I always try to share my experience about life. But most of the people here are just looking for crypto topics and also even they following u but if they dont see the big amount they dont vote.
When i start i didnt use any bot. I didnt earn almost nothing and also i didnt had followers. Than i told to myself lets try it different way. After i make some promotion for my posts i start to recieve votes and also followers.
Maybe the problem is about the feed or it will be also good if there will be a friend list maybe.
Tnx for this. It is helpful. I am still in doubt to use bots or not because we are responsible how is steemit going to work. Using them we are encouriging to bots become dominant and important, but I din't think that corelates with the idea of good content getting recognized and eventualy get some earnings on that quality
To be honest now since few days i also make usually 2 posts. For 1 i use bots still but for the another post not.
I think the main problem is that more and more people wanna just earn here so they are not curious about the posts. The important for them is just that they have the votes on they own. Thats why it is so so hard to reach the people. But if they see a post with few dollars already than they will follow u they will also vote. Most of the time the reason is because they wanna earn as a currators.
But also i think that the system also need the people like these because just with content creators there will be less trafic and the vallue of the sbd will fall. Maybe i am wrong but this is what i think.
I am sure it will be easier if there will be a friend list.
So basicly in everything good there is something wrong and in wrong things there is also good.
Bernie. Being the guy that just wants to see it all burn hopefully will get old with time for you.
Statements like you just made, that amateurs are developing for Steemit.inc is a fatalist statement.
Someone had to come up with the idea of SMTs and Oracles. Was it Dan?
Youre making money here, im making money here regardless of all the problems, lets try and give the guys trying to make it all a bit better some support. At least the benefit of a doubt.
That's very easy for you to say when you have little stake in Steem. I come up with ideas all day long, just because it popped into my head doesn't mean I should talk about it for 18 months like it's actually going to come to fruition.
If we rely on STINC to develop everything, then we are not really decentralized. @steemhunt has developed a decent Account Based Voting system on their own. You are a programmer, right? So how about developing something on STEEM like @steemhunt or @steemmonsters
Alternatively you can sell your stake and get into a STEEM competitor or just buy EOS which is going to have lots of airdrops.
Easy for me to say? You pull your stakes out right now or few weeks from now when the market recovers and youre probably set for a long time. I on the other hand have to hope that my talent, time and effort i place here will amount to something in the future. That one day i might be able to say that i dont have to worry about finances all day long. So really its not "easy for me to say"..
Developing complex ideas takes time. You call upon Dan as the "fruition guy" and he needed 2 projects before making EOS that still isnt perfect..
Ned makes some silly mistakes but hes my age, running a a company based on revolutionary tech. Walking in uncharted territory. Expecting instagram, facebook, youtube level of development is beyond any reason.
I have to say I was a believer in STINC at the start, but come on, its been to long! Its starting to feel much like waiting with Linus for the Great Pumpkin! I am not drinking the Kool-Aid any longer!
it is great
it is great
Interesting enough, i have been thinking about this today, and there is a main reason that high quality content creators are not attracted to Steemit:
There is no long term revenue for the content
If i were a high-quality content creator, and somehow ended up here on steemit, the first thing i noticed was that everything i create here will only earn me revenue for only 7 days.
So, why would i work my ass to create anything to this site, when i can post on YouTube/Spotify/My own blog/Medium and recieve revenue for this content for the rest of my life? (or as long as the said services were avaiable).
It just doesn´t make any sense for actual real content creators, since this means that your older work doesn´t bring you monetary value. The only one that keeps on "profiting" from your work is Steem itself.
Here is something that should be discussed:
Why not distribute the reward pool also to old content?
I will elaborate this idea better on a future post, but basically this could actually be an incentive for high quality content creators publish their content around here.
I think this is a fundamental problem, if the objective is to attract high quality content creators.
On the other hand, if the idea is for Steem to work as a Social Media platform (like reddit), then the system might be working just fine.
And about the Solutions to the voting problem, i don´t think it is a good idea to make 1 account = 1 vote in conjuntion with free account creation.
So, how would be possible to moderate millons of account being created everytime an account is shutdown? In my humble opinion, this will be the nail on the coffin.
Unlimited time-frame reward is hard to implement in STEEM blockchain since every block/reward is produced in a timeframe (e.g. 3 seconds). Reward is calculated from yearly fixed inflation rate.
However, monetizing great contents with online Ads can be implemented with an SMT.
For example, a separate website/DApp for the contents will have embedded Ads according to popularity. Content creators may have to post content using the DApp to participating in the extra earning through SMT. The DApp owner can accumulate these Ad profits and share with the content creators according to contents popularity.
The number of visits can be converted to a number of SMTs for every week/month.
Moreover, extra earning from Ads will attract authors and can also be used buy back SMT's .
Though it looks like it is against STEEM's philosophy, but these alleged ever-green contents need to rewarded forever.
The bottom line is that a top content can earn forever with Ads, however, STEEM blockchain can't reward them beyond 7 days. An SMT with intelligent algorithm can solve some of the issues.
So, i don´t know about the technical possibility, but here is my idea on how things should work:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
But yeah, Ads could be a solution too.
Send liquid?
How to post picture in center of page???
google "markdown"
I think your idea to make use of old contents is what we all want here but it seems quite impossible for it right now to be done. Well, Steemit is just very new and still struggling and facing new challenges. I'm sure the current system now will be changed so we'll just have to wait and see what will happen next while writing content here.
That's because many high quality Content producers can do it everyday, all day long. I do nOT see a problem with this 7 day window. You can either produce the Content on a regular basis or not.
Some are just NOT cut out for this...plain and simple as that . And that's okay
All of these changes are proposed future changes to Steem but they aren't part of Hardfork 20. And the 1 account/1 vote thing and the Oracle thing are almost completely vaporware at this point. SMTs are still quite a ways away, and those two things may or may not be a part of them. If they are it will push the development time out even farther.
@steemitblog has a summary of what's coming in HF20.
I'm glad you like my proposal, and the idea of tying the participation rewards to a 1 account = 1 vote scheme is intriguing. I'm going to have to think about that when I'm more awake.
I think in general we don't have enough systems in place to make sure quality new users are supported and rewarded, and thus if we start bringing in lots of new users we're just going to end up with lots of former users. This isn't helped by Steem Inc.'s unwillingness to use any of their power on curation/retention initiatives. We can have all the dApps in the world but if people aren't connecting it won't matter.
Hey @tcpolymath,
Thanks for the comment!
I've changed the post, removing comments regarding HF20 for now. The last thing I want to do is to spread false news and I had the understanding of more things coming in HF20 than in the latest news post.
But I'm not on par with that statement. SMTs and Oracles go hand in hand; and in the video - @ned and @theoretical sounded pretty serious about the math and logic behind account voting.
Having a voting-system for content-rating based on stake will not work - see the Furious Pete example in the post. And regardless how long it takes - if STEEM wants to attract millions of active users - it has to come.
Your proposal goes into the completely right direction!
Appreciate your comment!
Ned really likes conceptual work. Which is great, I do too! But you can't really take them as signs that that thing is coming the way he talks about it. That's not necessarily inappropriate in this case, as SMTs are Hardfork 22 at the earliest, and that's probably next summer. (#21 is Hivemind.)
Anyway, thinking more about how this fits with my proposal, maybe I'm extrapolating what you're saying too much here, and please say so. But it sounds like what you would like is to keep the PoS function of Steem running but remove the content voting system from Steem entirely and migrate it to a new SMT.
I think that's interesting but it seems like it's essentially how EOS and ONO work and they're already there, or nearly so. Maybe that will turn out to be a better idea but I'm not sure getting into it a year+ behind is worthwhile.
I'm not convinced that stake-weighted voting fundamentally doesn't work, either. I think it's very appealing to have a vote that gains value based on how much effort you've invested here and how much you've contributed. That may be weighted farther toward external financial power than it would ideally be, and certainly the distribution of power is currently a mess, but I don't think those are insoluble problems.
My vision of Steem five years from now is one where there's a large population of established users with $1-$10 votes who can collectively guide the growth of the content and the community.
Something is 3 Steem HFs away from us? Too bad, people don't live that long.
I should have mentioned that estimating how long things take not my strong side is.
But it would still be interesting to get some feedback from Steemit Inc regarding your date estimation. @andrarchy?
Don't worry, what you're saying is valid.
What I would like to see and what is possible are two different shoes. But the first step is always writing down the optimal situation. And that's, what my goal was with this post.
Stake-weighted voting has value, but I'd rather see it in closed communities - for example if a company were to have a community / SMT with own rewards pool. In that case, the CEO should have a bigger voice than an intern.
With all respect, 5 years is a long time and we should ideally reach that goal in 1-2 years. But again, my time estimation isn't the best ;)
If Steem Inc. wanted to do it we could have that in months. Even without busting out the ninja-mined stake, if they wanted to give @themesopotamians one of those million-SP delegations I could make 3000 dolphins a year.
Without their support it's going to take longer. I'm conservative on the five year estimate because it's just taking into account the projects that are active and communicative right now. Hopefully we will also be growing.
Maybe @kpine has a different estimate, it seems like he might be doing similar things to what I am with much more power and much less talking about it. I haven't included him because I don't really know.
We would be just under two years into that growth if stinc, et al, hadnt given us this crap by hardforking out the n2 and the whale xperiment.
So what if the investors dumped, the coin was at a dime anyway.
So what if they dump now, they are killing the network effect with their greed.
~980k people have said we are a failure, and left.
Cheap steem would bring in more $100 investors.
1m $100 investors does more for steem than 100 $1m investors, if we want to be a currency.
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.
@dan made those the rules because they had already been down this road and knew it wouldnt work.
Or we can wait for some more pie in the sky while rewards go to folks that havent earned them each and every day.
The no whale experiment was run my Smooth, nothing stops you from running that same experiment, apart from a few million SP.
Yes, i was here. I saw my vote go from rounding down to .06sbd.
I saw how excited that made everybody.
Too bad stinc, et al, hurried up and forked to stop it.
Ran @dan off, too. Vote selling was the plan and he was against that.
Smdh.
We might have become worthwhile for the newbs to stick around.
Well, that and it makes less sense under linear rewards.
If we are trying to become adopted as a currency the network effect of giving coins to an abusive few makes less sense than exciting a feeding frenzy by making the math attractive to $100 investors.
As it is now 1m users have said we are a game not worth playing, but the same exclusive group is happy accumulating more making the disparity even worse.
Instead of acting in a manner conducive to diminishing the negative aspects of the disparity we have increased it.
I guess that is how stinc, et al, wants to be known.
Not interested in broader adoption.
Seems to be working for them so far, at least they have done nothing to fix their mistakes.
I don't have time to fight your nonlinear rewards scam all over the platform but please don't direct it at me.
Says the guy that never experienced them.
There is a reason that stinc enabled the whales to keep abusing the pool.
Its too bad that you are a beneficiary of that abuse, or maybe you would see things differently.
If proof of stake is a good plan, how is nonlinear rewards anything different?
The problem was in the imbalance that the whale experiment solved.
But you wouldnt know that, and apparantly sticking your fingers in your ears is your solution.
Ok, by me.
Honestly, i think there is a deeper problem, that is the definition of Steemit itself.
We all talk about quality content, but in the end, there is no long term incentive for good quality content creators stick around Steemit. There is better fields out there to publish your work.
I talked a bit more here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
But you are wrong when you talk about Furious Pete and that he gained more value on YouTube. 200k viewers on YouTube is around $100-200. So you think it's more value than it really is. Comments and likes on YouTube is also mainly garbage. Lazy passive people. Steemit is not YouTube and will never be. The audience and community growth will build up in a new organic way here.
200k viewers are 400k eyeballs - most content creators aren't doing it alone for the monetary gain, but for people to see. And if there are no viewers, motivation ain't there neither.
Yeah well you are right. It is more eyeballs.
And Steemit should probably work on getting more eyeballs but I think it will happen more organically by just making a better product to understand.
I think majority of people do it more for the monetary gain. Having thousands of eyeballs can be more annoying for a content creators on YouTube. I have a YouTube channel with over 1 million follows and majority of people would prefer a smaller group of let's say 150 people to give massive value to. Since you then are valued more like a human and not an object.
It's more resource effective of getting the same value on Steemit in monetary gain from 100 people compared to thousands of people on YouTube clicking and watching a video.
Yes many content creators also enjoy getting viewers and they for sure don't like the current version of YouTube. It was nicer around 2007 to be a content creator there. Mainly because the leadership on YouTube is a disaster and that you can't build real trust and relationships on YouTube. Something that you can do on Steemit.
But how do you bring more eye balls if you don´t have quality content to attract more people to the platform?
I talked a bit more here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
I've got plenty of VP I'd use if there was good content to support and I could find it without spending hours sifting through a dumpster.
Too much time spent with very little reward. Doesn't make it very enticing, does it?
I can attest to this as well from a new users perspective. I have a rough time finding quality content creators to follow so I can only imagine how annoying it probably is for someone trying to use their VP to curate for the good of the platform.
Hey @berniesanders feel free to checkout my blog and provide feedback. I have thick skin so don't worry about hurting anyones feelings.
That's exactly it... it makes no sense that whales have to spend hours upon hours sorting through crap content to find the miniscule percentage that is actually good.
Granted, we have some great content creators, some awesome ones if I may say so, but what is the percentage that is any good... 5% 6% - Possibly I'm being generous there.
On the other hand, if anyone hits the new tag on the home page you will see a ratling gun of meaningless copy pasta, and poorly written pieces.
So, it's hard to convince a big investor (i've tried) hey... put a million into Steem, sort thru the garbage, you will find good stuff and make money. I'm good at sales, but I'm not a wizard.
That's why this makes so much sense to me. Investors can have their R-Shares, content creators can darwinian themselves to the top.
The best ones should thrive.
That's why they should let me do the finding good stuff part for them. I'm good at it, and I like it.
Of course Poly... Being a good curator is something you must enjoy.
Exactly. But I don't enjoy curation enough - does that mean I'm not able to profit from the investment I made with Steem?
Should I sell my Steem and invest in another PoS coin with dividends, that doesn't shame people for wanting to take profits from their investments?
Because self-voting and selling votes is bad, right?
PS: Not completely serious - just asking provocative questions.
As the hybrid word that does not exist yet would say: Presactly! (precisely and exactly) - But, we need to get over the emotional bumps on the road that don't allow us to have a mature conversation about this.
Whatever path we take, it must be a win for everyone, or its pointless.
This is very much the problem - it's a lot of work to find content you value here and every dApp we add makes it harder. We need one or more effective mechanisms that present audience members with content that they will enjoy. The original idea behind Steem was that the curation system would do that, and at the top levels there seems to be a lot of denial of the fact that it is an abject failure.
Fixing it in some fashion, whether it's algorithmic or manual or some combination, ought to be a priority. Probably the first priority.
Youtube has A LOT more garbage content than steemit. How they solved the problem? By personalized content filtering system.
Bernie, you're in a very unique position as a whale in this platform that actually cares about it and with big enough balls to let public hear your thoughts. I think you could do lot more here, if I remember correctly, you created the first vote selling bot and even though I don't like the effect they've had on the platform, it still says lot about your creativity.
What do I mean, well for example, regarding this problem you could list your needs as a whale for what it would require to make your curation process easier. Perhaps totally new website just with content that is selected by community selected curators that can be voted out? I don't know, but I'm sure there's plenty of devs who would like to hear what whales need and want to see developed.
Isn't that the point of Curie and OCD?
Low-staked users manual search for "good" contents and submit.
Reviewers select.
Curie votes.
High-staked accounts AKA investors following the trail do likewise automatically.
Except the elephant in the room is this miserly 25% curation reward.
Then, why not increase the percentage?
src
Most of these issues didnt exist before linear rewards.
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.
1 Account = 1 Vote will DEVALUE SP holdings at the blink of an eye. There will be no point to holding them. The only thing that matters will be how strong in numbers is your bot swarm.
It will be a crash for economy and crash for tokens. There is no success story in any pure PoS project in crypto.
I also don't understand how that will make it nice to have SP. So 1 new account have as much power as massive SP holders? Doesn't make any sense. This will open up a black market for buying these 1 Account = 1 Vote accounts. Everything has a price
No. SP and voting for content could be split.
But SP would have no influence in rankings which means it would devalue
I wouldn't be in favour of 1A1V (including incentivizing the holding of Steem) if I didn't believe that it would increase the value of Steem.
Giving people a passive income (maybe part of the rewards-pool) simply for holding SP would stabilize the value of Steem.
Name 1 successful Proof-of-Stake blockchain ecosystem.
maybe Dash? arguably Pivx too... I mean granted they have problems too, but they are doing better than steem.
I agree, there will be some way for bad actors to create thousands of accounts
I think the value of the upvote will stay the same, but it will depend on the oracle if you actually get paid out. So it will make a difference if you have a lot SP
And so we have a new class of steemit oligarchy with unlimited power over the economy. The story with no happy ending.
bullshit.
Watch the video - oracles for SMTs will decide who are good & bad actors and can also decline payouts in some cases.
They are likely over-valued at the moment anyhow. So, do you want the crash now, or the crash later?
Your an idiot
"You're"
hahahahahah
To me this makes a lot of sense... I discussed at length with polymath this subject when he wrote his post.
You basically have the stake holders getting their ROI, but not skewing the trending page and thus creating a better system of incentives for quality content.
I fail to see the issues with this... I'm serious.
I'll be ballsy and tag @transisto here to ask him.
Hey @transisto, how would you feel about making your ROI and never having to post anything? Would that not be easier?
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.
None of this was an issue before that hardfork.
Wasnt here?
Ask around.
you know.... maybe n2 for everyone who does not go into POS mode... hrmmm, that would be interesting...
I'm going to sleep on this idea some more.
The whale experiment leveled the field some.
A cap of 800mv was enough to make my vote go from nothing to .06sbd.
I didnt get enough time to get a feel for the math, stinc hurried up and hardforked.
If we want to grow the platform by rewarding 'good' content, stinc, et al, has failed miserably at that.
Better to bring back the whale experiment and let the community decide.
We can always raise the cap as we grow the bottom enough to not capsize the boat.
Flags for the abusers.
But dont mention that to poly, he has his fingers in his ears, and doesnt want to hear it.
i think there is a problem a bit deeper when we talk about ´good content´.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
Please, feel free to add your opinion there...
Done.
Exactly @meno.
We have two opposing sides on Steem.
Those who want to earn with their stake in Steem and those, who are primarily interested in creating content and building communities.
Now, both groups are extremely important, but I'm sure that the life on Steem would be a lot more relaxed if investing were to be separated from content creation.
I agree with your analysis of management and the social media. However, I have a problem with 1 account = 1 vote: there are hundreds of thousands of accounts that are bots. So, how to differentiate a person from a bot? Should we apply the KYC rule? And how could Steemit comply with the GDPR law? I can not see a solution with Steemit's governance system. The code is the law but the code is made by humans where the consensus is difficult!
The proposal for authentication is stacked. But, in the case of the proposed SMT, the one on the video, there would be to sets of oracles filtering the users.
One set would be implementing 1 account 1 vote - this could be approached in a similar fashion that people to introduceyourself posts at the moment. However, who is to say that the account faucet could not also have IP restrictions and what not. Granted this part could be tricked, an Oracle could miss that one account created three more. But this is when the second account kicks in.
The second set of oracles determine if the user is acting ethically. If the user is spam farming, triggering upvotes thru automated curation trails, etc. The oracles could shutdown all those account's earnings.
So, to be clear. it's not 100% bulletproof but... The amount of work abusers would have to do, might be enough to curve it significantly.
The moment they get discovered, they lose all possibilities of making any income. Unlike today, were if they have stake, it doesn't matter if they abuse, because they got enough stake to live outside the ethical expectations we may have.
An abuser will use a VPN to counter an IP. Is it possible to use the IMEI? A person can have multiple devices but usually a person is single to use these devices. So IP + IMEI could be an account.
However, there is still the GDPR. Several law firms are studying the possibility of litigating large corporations and blockchains. In the case of blockchains, it will be miners and witnesses who will be prosecuted.
From my understanding an SMT would have free range to work this out in the way they see best suited for them.
There is some socio-economic factors to the game as well. Believe it or not, in Steem's white paper it predicts spam and abuse and it says that some of it is necessary to create the network effect.
Now that sounds counter intuitive, at least on the surface. But, when I think about the fact that no society has gotten ridden of negative behaviors, at least not entirely.
I will admit, I'm not aware of the sweet spot, but I'm convinced it does exist. Maybe if we cut down with spam/abuse to a third of what we have today. Maybe, that's optimal...
Trending page is a pure frontend issue. No need to crack the economy when all you have to do is to fix it is changing post sorting algo.
I would love to agree with you, but i think its a bit more complicated than that. Yes, that is a big element of it, no doubt.
But... hear me out for a second.
What about content discovery? What about incentives for content discovery? What about profitable curation for content consumers?
Do we wanna have 20% content creators 80% content consumers. Like... Youtube? Maybe...
I see your point, that is part of it, but the solution is layered. At least if we are attempting to grow at the scale I picture.
On YouTube I like someone content not because I wanna profit on its creator's populariby but because I actually LIKE what he's doing.
That is curation. That is a feedback between creator and his audience.
i hear you, you are being logical brother. I'm not devil advocating to disagree, I'm simply trying to point out that the expectation behind participating of Steem is because people here can make money.
We have to be honest, i love our dapps, but they are young and glitchy. Remove the monetary compensation, and there reasons to participate of them reduce quite considerably.
Maybe not for me, maybe I would say.. but im trying not to judge solely from my point of view.
Exactly!
And now we are talking about remove that monetary SP-based incentive and replace it with bot swarms and that oracles?
Wha... what?
not on steem no, this is for an SMT that Steemit is going to launch. we need the incentive to hold SP. Two different things.
Thing is, not everybody is a good content creator.
And honestly, 20-80 is a pretty good number, if those 20% is actually good quality content...
acho que falar de uns 20% e ate muito... nao tenho os números do youtube mas eu acho que tem que ser menor... o fato e que nos nao podemos ter tudo mundo tentando ser um youtuber aqui, porque ficamos sem ninguém assistindo os videos... isso nao faz sentido.
O que eu estava pensando esses dias é que o problema é um pouco mais profundo... Está na indefinição de que tipo de plataforma o Steemit quer ser.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/porque-o-steemit-nao-e-atrativo-aos-produtores-de-conteudo-de-qualidade
vou dar uma olhada ai.
Reward the number of followers; if an account has many followers, this is because it is publishing quality content.
That would be awesome, but... today we have so many bots, those numbers could be skewed!
i guess my question is- how would the posts have value? how would the earnings change? if 1account=1vote and oracles and communities decide what things are worth -- do the oracles/communities then have to work really hard to "be worth anything" to be able to give a vote?
i see this changing the entire ecosystem of steem and i'm honestly confused as to what it will look like and now what type of behavior will be incentivized. take food, for example... food is a huge category wherever you go on the internet. always a lot of people clamoring for that well photographed yummy food porn! will the "food" community (because of the # of its users) have a lot of "power" (highter vote b/c more votes?) and the lesser (less members) communities have small votes simply because they have less interest. this will incentivize people to get into the communities with more people?
i truly don't see how this can pan out in a healthy way!! haha, because in the end, it does come down to earnings no matter what people will say and earnings incentivize behavior! curious to hear people's thoughts who do have a better grasp on this. @therealwolf @meno @tcpolymath
This is 100% what I am working on with the 1UP project. Luckily, I found investors now and the developing start next week. We will create a platform with 1 account = 1 vote which maixmized profitability for investors and token holders. At the same time we create our own ranking lists which will be 100 times better than the trending page. And on top of that, 1UP will reward all those people who use the platform to upvote others with our system so everybody will make money and be part of the game.
@flauwy could you explain it a bit more in detailed? :)
How do you imagine to maximize 1A1V for investors and token holders? I mean sounds great but don't have a picture in my head how this could work. Would love hearing more of that project. :)
This happens by maximizing the curation rewards in order to create higher revenue for the user compared to the normal Steem system. By giving up the Proof-of-Stake system and surrender to a hivemind curation the better content will win through Proof-of-Brain of the masses. By doing so the investor automatically upvotes the winning post and gets a higher curation reward for that compared to any manual upvote. At the same time we have users getting paid for giving 1UPs every single day which will make that an important income stream for them and increases the value. Finding a good balance for the 1A1V comes through gamification that ranks users according to their previous participation in 1UP. Also, not everyone gets a vote and their will be many filters preventing abuse through multiple accounts. The exact details are yet to be discussed. I am uploading a video right now about that topic where I need some feedback for how to achieve that and reduce abuse.
Are you coding a own blockchain or trying to use a future SMT?
We will use the SMT protocol for 1UP. But I am not a coder, I pay for that work.
Thanks for your efforts, it's good to see these type of content trending. Now I remember that my friend @knircky suggested the 1 account - 1 vote concept 1.5 years ago for the very same reasons. Let's see if we need another 1.5 years to finally implement it :-) Hopefully not!
It'll be tough to push this through. Too many large stakeholders are too comfortable in the current situation. Or why do we think they ignore those big influencers leaving without even raising an eyebrow...? :-)
We should not forget that some of those big influencers like the one mentioned above just don't make content interesting to grown-ups but rather to 14year old youtube-addicts :D So it's quite natural that they don't have success on a platform with 99+% 18year+ old people.
I don't think that Steem has any intention to become an adults only club, so to me it would rather make sense to keep such influencers in order to onboard new target groups. If we want Steem to be accessible to masses, then this also and especially includes teenagers.
I am about to bail on Steem. I don't see this turning out well. We have no idea where we are going with this blockchain and even if we did it is taking years to get anywhere. 1 Account 1 Vote is like taking a big crap on my little stack of Steem Power I have been accumulating for the last two years and then saying it's even better than it was before. Ultimatum is coming soon. If none of these developments (Communities, quick sign-ups and SMTs) are put into production by July 2019 I am so out of here. I will have 3 years under my belt at that point. I hope I can look back on these words some day and realize how foolish I was but at this point I feel like we will be in the same boat next July.
In a case 1A1V all votes would have the same value as I understand. Let suppose it would be 2$.
That's a monthly wage in Venezuela and a cup of coffee in Canada.
What about that?
Am I missing something?
Enlighten me, please.
Hey @oldtimer,
1A1V means that rewards would be distributed based on the number of votes rather than the value of single votes.
That's why it's so important for Oracles to make sure that 1 Account is actually one user and not 10 accounts are 1 user.
The problem with this system is that then it becomes about feeding the mainstream masses what they want and manipulate the rankings like that. Just the way politics work. The current voting system is more aristocratic and generates way higher quality content. If you want the rankings be ruled by the average low invested person you will see lower quality. Money generates more incentive to create massive quality content. It puts more responsibility on the user.
i agree. i personally don't like the idea of hivemind. i see it degenerating into a popularity contest. what kind of behavior will that incentivize?!
You are right. It then becomes about how you can play with people's brain to click like.
What's their incentive to do it?
The alternative is to authorize their own bot swarms as a legitimate users and make profit from them?
It makes sense, but the question is the same.
In Venezuela, you'll need 100K votes for a monthly salary and in Canada 100M.
Imagine if 500M Chinese people sign up and start posting in their language and upvote their own people's posts.
Don't get me wrong, please.
I'm aware current state is bad but I'm not sure about your proposal.
With all due respect @oldtimer this is a bit of a strawman concern. It's the equivalent of the one I've heard before.
What if CNN buys 20 million Steem and starts censoring anything fringe.
I understand what you mean, I'm not dismissing it, it's not impossible, its just highly improbable.
And because I don't want to come off as someone who is just spouting assertions without any type of backing.
Dunbar theory proposes that the an efficient social network maxes out at 150 people. From this number we have to assume collaboration, specially to this rank is fractionary. It would be difficult to imagine 150 coinciding on what to contribute towards at all times. And, since humans can't seem to care enough about people outside of the tolerance of 150, the network effect is capped in two fronts.
In other words. Imagining that millions of people can come together and collaborate at a macro sense almost goes against our nature, and we have no anecdotal evidence to prove it either.
To be a bit ridiculous (i apologize, its how i talk) we would have solved world hunger if we had that range of empathy and that selfless capacity for collaboration.
You don't need to apologize. I just want to spur the conversation.
Most of the time simple six-pack joe's logic is better than all theories.
And it's not censoring I'm worried about.
With 500M accounts, I mentioned in my comment above, we can expect a lot of good recipes on how to perfect grill the dog on BBQ on the hot page and even on trending.
I use to live in a socialism for 30 years and believe me. It doesn't work. Tested.
You are right. Socialism and Communism leads to the same shit system. The only sane system is an aristocratic rule system where people highly invested makes the big decisions. But a system that also allows people to grow and rise up to a high position of responsibility. That is impossible in a socialist/communist system. There is no top. There is then also no real empowerment for a human.
Hahahaha Hot dog recipes trending... I hear you. On the other hand, quality is very much subjective. I left a huge comment on Bernie's post regarding my opinion on this matter.
I mean, I don't want to come off as elitist, but for me cat pictures and hotdogs are not part of my content diet. Meaning, that when I'm of the idea of learning something new, a new theory, philosophy, or what have you, the last thing that will distract me is such content.
However, I'm sympathetic to the fact that for many people their cat is the most precious thing in the world and they need to have hundreds of pictures of it.
I think my idea of "quality content" that is, well written articles in all the fields that I enjoy will probably sprout as an offshoot of Steem. Possibly an SMT with that niche in mind.
But when it comes to mass adoption, its reasonable to think that we will do better with BBQ pictures and alike.
Let's say for every one guy who enjoys deep thought, there are thousands of six-pack joes. And both are equally important.
Agree.
For me, this place is to complex and I don't even try to understand how it works.
Thinking about how to change it? No way.
I never waste my time on things I can't change.
But that's just me.
I'm sure a lot of smart people are on the steemit. But even if we figure out what to do we have 21 witnesses to agree upon and confirm the changes.
If not, the ship will sink.
Content creators would still enjoy be on STEEM Blockchain at $0 cost since it's still better than toxic YouTube/Facebook/Instagram community haha.