A call for delegation
Curie is one of the oldest community projects and has proven to be sustainable through the bad times and the good. Although Curie will continue operations if major delegation is not secured, operations will necessarily be scaled back as Curie is currently operating at a deficit.
If you would like to delegate to Curie you can do so by clicking on the following links:
50 SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
Curie does not have the budget to pay current market rate for SP delegation but can give a small symbolic weekly return for major delegation (100,000 SP+ delegation). Please contact us on Discord to talk details: https://discord.gg/G6RPUMu
Curie is a meritocratic community curation project adding value to the community in many ways:
- Increasing the visibility of original, engaging content on the Steem blockchain by giving exposure to authors who are flying under the radar despite quality posting.
- Aiding user retention by giving engaged new users a taste of major reward and bandwidth to transact with the Steem blockchain (in form of Steem Power portion of author reward from @curie upvote).
- Discovering and empowering promising curators including support of interest/regional specific curation communities.
- Operating a community witness on the @curie account as well as operating full and seed nodes (our fullnode is available for API requests at:
https://rpc.curiesteem.com/).
100% of all Curie proceeds are returned to the community in the form of finder's/reviewers fees & operations pay for contributors. Curie does not self upvote any posting, reserving all available vote power to support other authors.
Other ways you can help
- Follow the @curie blog and upvote and resteem Curie posting
- Follow our trail and vote for curated authors. If you are a SteemAuto user, @curie is an available trail to follow.
- Vote for the @curie witness (all witness payouts are used to fund Curie operations).
- If you have received support from Curie in the past, consider telling your "Curie story" in a post using the #mycuriestory tag to raise awareness.
Learn more
- Read the Curie Whitepaper at curiesteem.com
- Join Curie on Discord chat and check the pinned notes (pushpin icon, upper right) for FAQ and most recent Curie guidelines.
- Watch a vlog from Curie community representative @carlgnash explaining Curie operations.
- Check out the #mycuriestory tag to hear directly from authors and curators about what Curie has meant to them.
Curie - Increasing the visibility of original, engaging content
- Curie curators look for exceptional posts by engaged authors that are flying under the radar, and submit them for review by Curie reviewers (former top Curie curators).
- A Curie reviewer verifies that the post is exceptional, original (not plagiarized), original to Steem (not published elsewhere first), and the author has been engaged with the community and consistent in posting quality content without receiving major reward lately.
- Posts and authors meeting these guidelines are approved for upvote by the @curie account and accompanying vote trail.
- Particularly exceptional posts are resteemed on the @curie blog to over 16k followers.
- Curie curators nominate and invite ~10-12 authors weekly to be featured in twice-weekly Author Showcase posting on the @curie blog.
In short, Curie is helping to keep the "brain" in "proof of brain" through human powered curation and review.
Curie - Aiding user retention
*Post or comment
**All accounts with at least one post or comment (n=416,379)
Curie - Discovering and empowering promising curators
- The Curie curation community is centered around the Curie Discord channel.
- Anyone interested in curation is welcome to apply for the "prospective curator" role in the #general channel. Prospective curators can learn from Curie curators and each other while using the
#curation_linkschannel in the Curie Discord. - There are ~90 active Curie curators monthly and currently 117 prospective curators.
- Curie curators receive a finder's fee per approved submission, rewarding quality curation.
- Curators receive a weekly curation score based on performance; top curators each week can recommend in a new curator.
- Objective performance targets are set; Curie is a meritocracy and any curator can achieve top curator status based on performance, and with consistent performance over time any curator can become a reviewer.
- Curie also supports interest- and regional-specific curation communities ("sub-communities"); each sub-community has developed its own rules & guidelines and has its own team of curators. The @curie vote and trail follows behind these sub-community curation teams at a reduced vote % (see the Weekly Update published every Sunday on the @curie blog for a complete list of sub-communities and sub-community leaders).
Show me the numbers
The Steem ecosystem is described as a place where "your voice is worth something" and content creators can "get paid for good content" (from the current advertisement to new users at steemit.com).
Curators paid: ~ 1,000
MYTH: Curie only supports lower REP authors
Curie has been around for a long time and you may have already formed an opinion based on the way Curie used to operate. At one point, Curie would not upvote an author who had passed an upper limit of REP 52. This is no longer the case. Curie now supports authors of any REP who are persistent in quality posting but receiving little reward recently. A quick look at the unique authors, posts and post payout on Curie upvotes in 2018 to date proves that Curie does in fact support authors of all REP levels.
You may be surprised how many of the established authors on Steem blockchain have received support from Curie:
* Note that a Curie upvote is typically sufficient to lift authors out of the bottom REP ranges 25-34
This chart shows what percentage of the total number of accounts in each REP band have received at least one Curie upvote. This is current REP and in the majority of cases the Curie upvote would have come while author was at lower REP. Given that there are a significant number of bots, group/community accounts, etc., the percentage of actual individual human authors who have received support from Curie is undoubtedly even higher!
Support for Curie is support for exceptional original content, support for engaged & persistent authors, and support for manual curation / "proof of brain".
What is the best way to contact you?
I am building a second layer for Steem, which will allow to people, to delegate unused voting power from a day to different initiatives, like @curie.
I would like to talk with you about the details, to make this project better suited for you.
You can poke your head in Curie Discord https://discord.gg/G6RPUMu
Also feel free to DM me on Discord @gnashster#6522
This sounds like an awesome Project. Hope it works.
I am interested in seeing your progress with this, is there a way to follow you new endeavor?
That sounds like such a brilliant idea. I'd love to know that my VP is being used without some of the semi-randomness of some of the auto-voting methods that are around. I'd also love to be able to support @curie in a meaningful way while still maintaining my still low amount (~700) of SP.
Cool idea ! Did it become real within the last 12 months?
Thanks for everything you do to encourage real content creators on this platform. I'll delegate 1k and resteem this :)
That means a lot to this community. We appreciate your believing in Curie and supporting her 😍.
Nice! Thank you for supporting a curation team that has made the difference for me as a writer on Steemit. It's heartening to see larger delegations coming in!
Mate, you're awesome.💚
good man!
Challenge, where you can win up to 100s $SD!
If you want to, you can try it here:
https://steemit.com/contest/@guessandgain/guess-and-gain-6-2-day-win-usd
@curie is the reason I didn't abandon Steemit the second time I decided to give it a go. I was lucky enough to have several of my early posts earn an upvote, and this was most likely an integral part in developing my following today.
I strongly commend the team behind curie for everything that they do - they're part of the reason the steem blockchain is such an appealing place for content creators.
I've edited this post to include the below image: (A proof of delegation, totalling 100SP)
Thank you curie, and its curators; for all that you have done for me and my engagement with this platform.
Maybe you should post your Curie story under #mycuriestory tag. Would love read it.
I've actually just started drafting an outline :)
I've published it here.
Same here holoz0r. I remember my first Curie vote like it was yesterday. Only $20 back them, when Steem was worth a dime, but it got my attention nonetheless.
To see Curie scale back would break my heart but I lack resources to do much about this one. Rooting from the sidelines that someone can make a sizable delegation here.
edit: Reading other responses here makes me feel like a loser, so I'll go ahead and delegate 50SP in a minute to do my part. You got me
Good for you @holoz0r
This project has to be supported!
Even if you've never had a @curie vote (like me!), the project is doing its best to promote the best content and keep these producers engaged.
Wow that is awesome Asher! Many thanks!
thanks you so much for your supported @abh12345
so i know i am going to get beat up on this, and downvoted, and just start an all around shit storm but i have to ask. Aren't they supposed to spread the love. When i went and looked at their outgoing votes last night steemotion had over 300 votes (sorry i did not take a screen shot) from them in the last 7 days. This morning when i just now checked it had rolled over to him having 41 votes right now
So in the name of being educated on a subject can someone inform me of why this would happen. sorry if this comes off as me being a dick, i am not trying to be. I am just a numbers guy and those numbers seem off.
[EDIT] April 10th, 2018 10:56pm UTCHey @doomsdaychassis thanks again for bringing this to our attention. You appear to have spotted some scamming going on that received support from Curie through a curation trail we followed. I am actively investigating to shut it down ASAP. Thanks for your service to the community! Cheers - Carl
[/EDIT]Hi @doomsdaychassis, So first I noticed that you had this sorted by count. These are TINY % votes, and they are coming from the @curie vote trailing a sub-community's curation team. Curie supports a number of interest and regional specific sub-community curation teams with a vote follow at a very small vote %. The most famous of these sub-communities is probably #steemstem but the entire list of sub-communities that Curie supports is published every Sunday in the "Weekly Update" on the @curie blog. Each sub-community has its own guidelines and is an independent operation (to be clear, a sub-community is not Curie, the curation is not done by Curie curators, etc.). Because of the number of these sub-communities that Curie supports, and the tiny vote % for each vote that Curie casts following the trail of the sub-community curators, sorting by vote count is beyond pointless. If you go check the @steemotion blog, you will see that these are TINY votes. E.g. in past day that account received 8 Curie votes, but the SUM TOTAL of pending payout on all 8 posts is < $3! I can't tell at a glance which sub-community this author is receiving support from, but it is obviously not a big deal in any case. The Curie vote is at such low % that the Curie vote and trail isn't even showing up in most of these posts among the list of top voters because the votes are coming in at such negligible %. The majority of the (small in the first place) payout on @steemotion's posts upvoted by Curie is not actually coming from the @curie vote and trail.
The website you are using is really not very useful at all for an account like Curie that makes a TON of votes, as the website limits results to top 250; sorting by weight is slightly more useful here (and you will see that @steemotion drops off the list if sorted by weight), but the TOP vote receiver by weight only received .61% of the Curie outgoing vote weight in the time period. A much more useful website is http://steemreports.com which will allow you to see ALL votes. Here is last 2 weeks outgoing votes from @curie:
Then why even trail the a sub-communities' curation teams? If the impact and reward is so small? I see this in different places, where one vote leads a large number of tiny, tiny upvotes. In reading about HF20, those tiny votes will just become 'dust' and be sent to null anyway. I've wondered about this for awhile, so thanks for your comment that explains part of what's going on.
The short answer is that Curie sets the follow % for the vote trail, and then it is up to the sub-community curation teams how they use their votes. Some sub-communities e.g. #steemstem are much more conscientious in parsing out their vote power, giving large enough % votes that the Curie follow vote is still meaningful. Other sub-communities have decided to spread their vote % out far and wide; the mechanics of a trailing vote necessarily mean that if you are trailing a vote at a reduced %, and the original vote is actually cast at a low % to begin with, the trailing vote is going to be tiny. The bigger point here is that each sub-community's operations are independent from Curie. Curie has set the cap for total vote % of the follow, but the sub-communities have freedom to determine how to best use it. Some of decided to opt for spreading it out to a very large # of recipients, even if that means the reward going out to each is quite small.
Thanks for the explanation.
so this guy is just gaming the vote by posting a stolen pic with one sentence under it stating that the rights belong to the photographer with out even bothering with a source?
Ah, digging farther it looks like Curie has already removed support from that author. If you visit steemd.com/@steemotion you can see that the Curie upvote (small as it was to begin with, and coming from sub-community follow, and not part of normal curie operations), has been unvoted from his posting still in payout.
how recently? because as I stated earlier he had over 300 votes from them last night if memory serves me right. I was just sitting there drinking a beer thinking " how is this mother F'er getting over a vote a day from them? " I hope they go through and check everything going on internally because as everyone knows they just droped out of the top 20 witnesses and if they keep letting this stuff slide they will keep going down. People are getting tired of the reward pool abusers and unfortunatly I think curie is aiding a lot of these abusers that have found a way to game the system while noone is looking.
Looks like votes were removed 22 hours ago. it is not possible to review and police every vote going out from the sub-communities that Curie supports; on the other hand, every large vote that curie casts as part of actual Curie operations is human reviewed twice, first by a Curie curator, and then by a Curie reviewer. I can tell you that very few, if any, accounts that are giving out large rewards in the form of upvotes have two humans reviewing each post before a large upvote goes out.
The sub-community upvotes on the other hand are not large, and are not a part of Curie curator/reviewer operations. You understand what a vote trail is right? I didn't explain that previously as I assumed it was self-explanatory, but perhaps I should have explained. When I say that the Curie vote follows the vote trail of the sub-community curation teams, that means the sub-community is the one reviewing the post and deciding to upvote it (not Curie!). Curie is supporting those sub-communities' curation efforts with a "vote trail" which means that the Curie vote will automatically be cast behind the vote of the sub-community curation team, at a reduced % of the original vote strength cast by the sub-community. We are talking very small votes there; while the total number of votes that Curie casts through sub-communities is large, as a % of total curie outgoing vote weight they are small. The votes cast by @curie after a post has been submitted by a Curie curator and reviewed by a Curie reviewer, on the other hand, are large.
As noted previously, the sub-community curation teams are not a part of Curie. Curie follows their vote trail at a small %. There are hundreds and hundreds of votes cast daily by the sub-community curation teams that Curie supports. It is not possible to review every one of these votes - the majority of the Curie votes coming in behind a sub-community curation team are < $5 votes, and most are FAR smaller than that. Curie is already running at a deficit maintaining manual review of every large vote that Curie casts through Curie curators / reviewers - it takes time to review posts. Curie lists the sub-communities and lists the Steem usernames of each sub-community's leaders on the @curie blog's weekly update - this is done precisely so that if there is an issue with a sub-community votes, it can be taken up directly with the sub-community. If an author being supported by a sub-community turns out to be plagiarizer/scammer, Curie will of course remove the upvotes (as happened here).
yes i understand a vote trail. On that note should the higher ups of curie review who they are trailing? How often do they review these things? It is tax time here in the USA so maybe it is time for curie to audit themselves on some internal level of what is going on. I realize they are huge and it will take some effort but they are going to have to sometime or else they will become a feeding trough for scammer piglets.
edit: it seems like we are trying to say the same thing except i am more pissed about what is going on here.
Well for one thing, the votes had been removed 16 hours before your comment here - so obviously it had already been caught and corrected. Two of the founders of Curie, as "high up" as there are in Curie operations, are @donkeypong and @kevinwong and they have actually removed themselves mostly from "regular" Curie activites and have dedicated their time to supporting and monitoring the sub-community teams (@donkeypong supporting/monitoring the regional specific sub-communities that receive Curie support; and @kevinwong supporting/monitoring the interest-specific sub-communities that receive Curie support). So yes, Curie higher ups are already doing exactly as you suggest.
Listen it isn't like I am not angry when a plagiarizer or spammer gets a reward. But I also have the big picture of Curie operations in mind. In past two weeks, 1729 votes outgoing from @curie and 1679 of those were to unique authors. That is 97%. The remaining 3% of authors that received multiple upvotes from @curie during that time period were largely from the sub-communities, and certainly it is not the case that all or even many of those were given to spammers/scammers/plagiarizers. The Curie vote record stands up to close inspection, and indeed, more so than any other major account I can think of. I would be interested to see what account you think is doing a better job than Curie in ensuring that outgoing votes are both spread out to a broad number of authors, and has instituted manual review of EVERY post that receives a large upvote.
Glad I could be of assistance. Thank you for hearing me out.
I was going to say it would probably be a person that was curied and was designated as a person that would receive a small curie community upvote to keep the person engaged yet when I looked at the content of the account well I have some questions as well.
Given the amount is really small but a vote to that account and 7 votes in one day does make me scratch my head.
I think it is a perfectly normal question
https://steemit.com/colorchallenge/@steemotion/colorchallenge-fridayblue-skull-0cc57d545d483
this is a 1 sentence post saying the photo isn't his and curie upvoted it. all of his posts are trash
this is pissing me off now that i dig deeper. they just lost my witness vote that i had for them
I still believe in what Curie does and by bringing this to light they can make steps to investigate their trail on a community vote.
I will still retain my vote to curie and the witnesses that support them.
i can respect that. Another poster pointed out that @curie is now going back and taking their votes away from that poster. If they review what they are doing and i can check in and see for myself i will vote for them again. I am just tired of people abusing the system around here. I believe in steemit and I delegate some of my limited steempower to @newbieresteemday because i believe they are here to do good. It makes me mad when i see curie resources and votes going to trash that could be going to newbies that are pouring their hearts and souls into their posts for absolutely nothing because some A hole figured out how to get daily vote by using a certain tag or something.
I saw that Carl answered you on this and it was good that you pointed it out.
Small community votes and trails would not be as scrutinized as their bigger votes.
Even in our local community, I have a few trails and when I saw that mine was being abused I removed myself from that trail.
That is what we need in a decentralized platform for people to care and question how things are done. We need people to be accountable for and know the power they hold when giving out votes that have trails.
Interesting. I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask. Why is one account getting six votes per day? And the second on the list is getting three per day?
you can go to steem world and the top 250 register for the last 7 day. if i scroll clear down to number 250 that guy has recieved 3 votes in the last 7 days. Just saying
Hi @ats-david. You were mentioned by @apolymask as a witness our team should keep an eye on. I will definitely do so seeing that you are engaging in here!
See my detailed reply above :)
Hey @doomsdaychassis. We run into each other here of all places. I just found out today that @curie has supported some of the same authors 10+ times. I thought they spread their upvotes around and only shared 2-3 upvotes per author, but then again, I'm still learning about curie and witnesses myself. Interesting point there!
Edited: I looked up steemotion with the curie bot, the upvotes are from community support. Meaning this account has received a total of 93 upvotes for curie community support, but the upvote value is minimal, in the 0.36% range.
You should check out Asher's (@abh12345) curie post. There are accounts there that have received 10+ upvotes from curie and they don't even support curie as a witness! (Not saying that is a requirement for curie support)
yeah, i feel like even making this post just put a huge target on my back but that is the story of my life. I hope bringing this to light motivates them to do what they were meant to be rather than keeping down this new path of circle jerking the same people. This could be the very reason that they got dropped out of the top 20. Maybe curie needs to do an internal review of what is going on and what needs to be fixed.
An internal review would be for curie to decide. I have seen some of the same authors receive curie support, and seeing Asher's post, I know many of the same authors receive curie support. Some are small community support so I agree those could be ruled out. They are there to encourage budding talent. Some though are big curie upvotes supporting the same individuals.
I thought it an interesting read that many of them are not even supporting curie as a witness!
i stopped over and stirred the pot a bit. lets see how things shake out :)
I'll stop over to read your boiling witch brew later, lol. I have to get back to work. I don't make enough (any) on steemit to lose my day job.
thank you @ats-david and @maverickinvictus for seeing what i am seeing. It is nice to have someone higher up the food chain agreeing with me. I thought for sure i was going to get downvoted to hell and back for this one. you might stop by this post about curie delegation and see if anyone finds a diffrent point of view or reasoning on why this is happening. Maybe one of you gentleman could go upvote my post and bump it up tot he top, it is lost in the mix right now with my tiny $.12 vote. thanks
Very sad to see the biggest curation project, is not receiving enough support. I hope the steem team sees that these projects are very worthwhile to support.
Yeah it is interesting but I won't comment here. I certainly personally would love to see both Curie and @OCD receive more official support as two of the only ways that a curator of good content can actually receive support and a return on time spent curating. The curation reward mechanic is broken.
I hope the program finds the support it deserves.
I want to ask a question tough
@curie supports specific type of authors? like scientific articles etc?
I wonder if people like me who write about lets say philosophy or free writing could be reviewed?And if so should we use a spcific tag?
Thanks in advance
Curie supports most tags. There is no specific tag to be used, you will be found.
Curie supports a very broad range of posting. There are only a few topics that are not within the Curie guidelines: Steemit-related posting (posting about Steemit / Steem), religious and political posting. And for those last two, what is outside of the guidelines is religious or political posting that advocates one position; a fair and balanced academic review of a religious or political topic for instance would be welcome :) There are other guidelines though (not topic related), you can visit us on Discord (link in the post near the top) to read the current guidelines in the pinned notes in #announcements c hannel. Cheers
thank you for your responce
OK - I just delegated you guys some SP. It's a no-brainer, since I wouldn't have it if not for your regular support. @curie's vote, early on, was key in convincing me to blog here rather than elsewhere. And while I don't really do it for the money, getting the occasional boost when I put the effort in on a longer or more thoughtful piece really makes the experience rewarding.
Also, I appreciate that @curie supports so many posts that are about subjects other than Steemit. The platform will never grow if all outsiders see are articles about the platform!
This is the best part of @curie, bringing more content than just crypto into the fold. The focus on diverse, original content means that there's always something excellent to read that curie brings to the attention of the world.
And therein, lies the value, you read articles that you wouldn't normally have an interest in, and learn things about things you didn't know were even things before!
Thanks @winstonalden! You are really highlighting what I think is one of the biggest things that Curie does RE supporting posts on subjects other than Steemit (and I would probably throw "posts other than crypto" into that same mix). The variety of posting that is upvoted by Curie is amazing. The delegation is much appreciated. Much love - Carl
Oh yes - other than crypto for sure!
Could you imagine buying the New York Times ten years ago, and it's just a big business section, and half the articles are about the New York Times?
LOL! What a perfect analogy :)