RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

igster in #steem • 7 years ago (edited)

I don't think there should be any mechanic that forces others to vote for it (or conversely, to prevent others from voting for it, if I was a popular writer)

Where have you seen people discussing about mechanics that would force people to vote certain content or not?

What people have been asking for is more rewards for curation, a seperate downvote pool and other ways to actually make it worthwhile for humans to interact in Steem ecosystem rather than just sell votes passively and get their rewards for doing so.

So from the beginning, the central argument is that holders of SP get to decide how they use their own SP

This doesn't mean we shouldn't tweak the system rules so this place actually becomes an attractive for normal users and we can actually start competing with major social media platforms...

7 years ago in #steem by igster

0.00 BPC

Sort:

Trending

[-]

stevescoins 7 years ago

other ways to actually make it worthwhile for humans to interact in Steem ecosystem rather than just sell votes passively

it could be just the semantics of how I understand this, but that sounds exactly like saying "vote for content the way the community wants you to vote for content"

One of the reasons STEEM has additional value for investors is the possibility of passive income PLUS the potential likelihood of market value increase.

you either have to remove curation rewards for curating, or face the likelihood that some people will game the system for their own best ROI. when you remove curation rewards, whether passive or active, you remove the value for some investors.

The best way for any creator to make SP is to network AND to create quality stuff. I'm not good at networking, but I realize it's still the best way.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

igster 7 years ago (edited)

Yes, reading your comment made me remember one proposition I really liked actually!

Separate passive investors to their own reward pool so they don't diminish the efforts of active curators! If there are people who only want to maximize their profits from investment, let them, but we shouldn't let that behavior effect everyone else negatively and forcing them to join since there's no other good option. If we do this, there will be more curators, since they can actually affect what the trending looks like. And as our content discovery actually starts working, we'll start getting more members. And as Steem Power will actually have effect after this change, there'll be more demand as well, both for passive investors and active users which will drive the price up. So in my mind this is a win win for everyone, other than those who want to see Steem not succeed in a major way.

@elipowell

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

abh12345 7 years ago

Separate passive investors to their own reward pool so they don't diminish the efforts of active curators!

Sounds like an SMT backed with an Oracle could be the solution here? That way the post rewards as viewed by the SMT may choose not to include bot votes and self-votes.

0.00 BPC

[-]

igster 7 years ago

Yes, SMT's could try a lot of different schemes, and I'm also interested in making one that focuses solely non promoted ecosystem.

0.00 BPC