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

josephsavage in #steem • 7 years ago

Ideally, I'd probably prefer just a 'spam tax' of say 30-50% up until Steem value is around 1, and then completely normal linear after that.

If the goal is to kill off the remaining steem user-base, then I would say that's a great idea. The average post payout is only a little more than 1 SBD (about 3 STEEM), but strongly skewed by the tiny percent of posts with high upvotes.

The median post payout is closer to $0.08, well below your 'spam' range. Calling the posts by more than 50% of all Steemians 'spam' would be a disaster.

Source: @arcange's Steem Statistics

7 years ago in #steem by josephsavage

0.00 BPC

3 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

mattclarke 7 years ago

Almost all of them are spam, though. There's currently no incentive to put in any more than minimal effort.

0.00 BPC

[-]

trafalgar 7 years ago (edited)

Yes these figures are true. In practice, my suspicion is the convergent linear curve would actually hit the lower payout posts harder than a 30-50% spam tax, but of course that depends on the numbers.

If we can stop most profitable spam behavior by making low payouts accept 70c to the dollar, it's not a terrible trade off. Keep in mind that when other measures are implemented, self voters and vote selling posts would likely be hit by downvotes and would consider elsewhere. A deterrent to an influx of micro spam votes in order to continuing reaping ones own voting rewards should be considered as this could be really bad for RC and blockchain bloat.

Actual figures can be adjusted. It's really about forcing all profitable behavior into the light and there's no real way to do it without some trade offs.

The median post payout is closer to $0.08, well below your 'spam' range. Calling the posts by more than 50% of all Steemians 'spam' would be a disaster.

Likewise, the median number could be strongly tilted to the low end due to the high levels of pre existing spam.

0.00 BPC

4 votes

[-]

valued-customer 7 years ago

"...making low payouts accept 70c to the dollar, it's not a terrible trade off."

You clearly speak for yourself, selfvoter. Regressive taxes that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor are always terrible trade offs. The more I read your comments, the more I observe the dichotomy between your rhetoric and your actions.

We have an awful problem with retention now, and this would horribly worsen it.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

iflagtrash 7 years ago

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

0.00 BPC

12 votes