The truth and lies about 25% curation, why what you know is FAKE NEWS.
View this post on Hive: The truth and lies about 25% curation, why what you know is FAKE NEWS.
View this post on Hive: The truth and lies about 25% curation, why what you know is FAKE NEWS.
You better vote on a stupid comment with no votes and after 30 min, i guess that will give the expected 25%?
Wrong. You earn far more by upvoting a post with close to no upvotes at 30min, and then have a whale or a large number of people upvoting that post after you, than voting on a random comment that gets no more upvotes afterwards.
"You earn far more by upvoting a post with close to no upvotes at 30min"
Yeah, and while we're at it, seen any good unicorns lately?
Comments you can see 25% because usually, they have only one voter. But posts, it is almost never the case.
you can see actual average curration % on steemdb here is photo
also check out following
curation calculator https://s3.amazonaws.com/yabapmatt/bottracker/curation_calculator.html
and ilustrated guide how curation works
https://steemit.com/curation/@miniature-tiger/an-illustrated-guide-to-curation-from-the-simple-to-the-complex-with-real-examples-from-past-posts-part-1
Useful information ;)
I think there needs to be an adjustment to the curation / author split in order to attract investors who would buy STEEM, power it up and hold it, and earn that way (thru curation). If steemit was also advertised as a platform that pays good dividends to "investors" it might attract some curators willing to invest instead of people who are given the idea that they can just write a crap post and earn a bunch of money (that's how you attract spammers and scammers and people who post crap that clogs the "new" feed).
Maybe I'm missing something but I think in order for STEEM to appreciate in value significantly curators need to get bigger rewards. Otherwise the author / curator balance will remain tilted and authors will keep cashing out continuously and keep driving the price down.
I'm not suggesting a huge change, maybe make it 67/33 or 60/40 or something. IDK. Just one guy's opinion.
Check @blocktrade's recent post for his view, along your lines I think.
I’ll definitely be interested to see what @blocktrades has to say on the matter. They see the stats of how much steem is bought vs sold. Thanks for the reference
no worries :)
Why would you need that when I read that over 70% of STEEM is held in SP?
If that is the case, a large percentage of the existing STEEM falls under your category.
Increasing the proportion for curation might cause an issue because of the possibility that the rich are going to monopolize it.
There is definitely that aspect of it. But it could attract more investors (the rich) who could drive up the price of steem which would benefit everyone holding STEEM, even the minnows (bigger payouts, etc). I can understand where you're coming from though. The rich already kind of own the system right now anyway and it seems like no matter what is done they'll find a way to stay on top. That's just the way it works...iMO
the golden rule: He who owns the gold rules
whatever we do, the rich will never give up their power over us. There's more of us but they have the upper hand, they pay us to kill, steal, slave for them and that's what they call community.
A new system is needed where the rich slave for the poor :) If you're rich it should be that you're curating/writing etc and actually bringing in something here. But as it is, the poor produce everything and the rich just reap the rewards.
There are some poor reaping some rewards. Carrots? to draw the other poor in.
Steemit is just a small version of reality. Hopefully we'll all learn from one another and help each other as much as we can.
You painted a clear picture. No matter what we do, no matter our efforts input, the rich always find a way to stay on top the poor
That is the ugly part of reality
Marxism. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
Yeah right, there's always this difference between rich and the poor :)
OK, but why its not 25%? Because of self voting?
Only because of votes in the first 30 minutes, self-votes are typically inside of the first 30 minutes, but a lot of other people vote earlier as well so they can get first in line for curation rewards.
It's funny how that's enough already for such big effects. @themarkymark what's your take on whether that's a good or a bad thing?
Posted using Partiko Android
right up my ally, love this post, the approach, the questions you asked of the data. We need witnesses like you !
Steemit on
That's really interesting.
Thanks for doing it.
I know some people are reluctant to re-embrace the 50/50 author/curator split, but it looks like it would be closer to a 65/45 split in practice, which I think many would find more palatable.
I wonder how this would work for folks leasing to bid-bots? Do you think they would be more inclined to pull SP back out to curate with?
I went into detail here although I didn't touch on bidbots at the time.
We can't stop self upvoting, so we have to offer a better use for that voting power.
Curation is and always has been the answer. It's no surprise, based on Markymark's observations here, that careful, considered curation isn't a priority.
I can see a real shift of appetite here, which is fantastic to see :)
Cheers Matt, just read that post, a fine effort (so take my reward here retrospectively)
Yes indeed, if only the ones with the appetite held the SP to feed the hungry. It's happening though, slowly..
This is an extremely important point. @blocktrades, take note of this
well, 65/35 @mattclarke ;)
Lol. I meant 65/35.
Derp! I read it as 65/35 anyway, so we good ;)
65/45 would be 110 percent - Sounds good but would lead to more inflation.
Ah yes down here others have noticed as well ;)
I can't edit either, as he's screen grabbed it :p
You can edit it and should, just add a little note saying you edited it, that's what I always do.
It's all good :) we're all friends here.
Besides, I noticed before anyone else.
That's gotta count for something.
That totally counts!
This is good news and means that using Bid-bots will in fact lead to a greater financial reward than stated.
That's good news?
For Bot users, yes?
I guess so :). I'm not a bot fan any more.
how come?
Are the reasons financial, ethical, political? :)
Its mainly around upvote bots - i feel that genuine manual curators will be turned away from up-voting posts that have a large number of bot-generated upvotes on them. It could be that im misunderstanding the whole way that curation works however.....
Yes I think they are, and do turn away from bot voted posts.
You could stick a vote on the post a few days in when the interested has faded though?
Yeah, i do think that could be an idea, but then that's obviously not something that the bot owners want as it would reduce their potential curation rewards. For the person who spends time posting good quality content and gets very little reward (which is, unfortunately, the inherent nature of Steemit), I don't really have an issue with them using a bot to get a few extra cents for their efforts. I just worry about the demise of curation, which could in turn, send this platform into a self perpetuating cacophony of bot upvoters as people struggle to get even the slightest reward for their posts..
Could it be because people voted before 30 minutes and the rewards went to the author ? Also if the author self voted, then he takes maximum of curation rewards, is that right and could influence this calculation ?
All upvote rewards in the first minute go almost completely to the author. With only at minute 30 all 100% of the upvote rewards are shared along the 75/25 maxim.
Given that more popular authors/whales usually benefit a voting trail they tend to get more of the share which otherwise would have been distributed 75/25 because many autovotes are before the 30th minute, those with more SP often even taking a higher penalty because their weight in the curation matrix is higher and they will still come out on top.
So if a whale self-votes within first two or three minutes, barely anything of their upvote is shared with the curators.
It is all the votes that happen within the first 29 minutes 59 seconds that change the actual curation rewards percentage. Self-voting is the other factor, especially when done in the first 15-20 minutes.
Then may be we should find a statistics based on that, to get the clear picture.
great post.. I also use that button "upvote post" while writing.. and this is not the first post I read about the voting and rewards situation on steemit... I think it should be changed!