You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Will creators really lose between 1/2 and 2/3 of their rewards with HF21 like some are saying?

in #hf21 • 6 years ago (edited)

So those that proposed this are betting with "my" 50% loss in rewards that i will be better off in time. I would prefer if we all had to put it on the line. I would be ok with that. I feel like its only creators putting it on the line. :(

I have said it 100 times, and blockchain remembers, if i could get my top supporters to have 100%curation efficiency (like on steemworld) i would be ecstatic. I would love if i could adjust how much my supporters get. (if i get big upvotes i can give them more etc.)

But it looks like it is that big players are "gambling with my chips".
I know its not my money and i say it many times here, but its only the creators that are up to lose if things go bad, it seems.. :(.

6 years ago in #hf21 by
$0.04
  • Past Payouts $0.04
  • - Author $0.03
  • - Curators $0.01
1 vote
Reply 5
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago 

    I think the content creators and the investors are exposed to slightly different risks. If the EIP experiment fails and behaviour does not change, content creators will be worse off in regards in tokens and this could result in some of the more talented content creators leaving. If Steem loses talented people or even those with average ability, that will hurt investors as less people will want to use the Steem. Less people using Steem will cause the price of Steem to fall in respect to other crytopcurrencies. As investors have the most Steem, they are hurt the most by a fall in price.

    There is also advertising revenue to consider. Steem DApps will be more attractive to advertisers if there are more people using the DApps. So the success of the EIP should be impportant to investors. What is the point of holding more Steem if it can't be eventually sold at a good price?

    $0.06
    • Past Payouts $0.06
    • - Author $0.04
    • - Curators $0.01
    1 vote
    Reply
    [-]
     6 years ago 

    Thing is that everyone is a creator and they can profit regardless of content quality.

    Imagine Bob. Bob doesn't care about Steem as a platform.
    Bob post some spamy content 10x / day.
    Bob don't need to compete with you with quality content. He doesn't have to sing. He doesn't have to do anything. He can just selfvote.
    There's also Charlie, he has a lot of SP, and he wants to earn somehow. Easiest way? Upvote himself. But it's not really publicly acceptable. So Charlie can sell his votes to someone. Bob will buy it and upvote himself.
    Dave is a good guy, Dave curates quality content, but can't earn as much as Charlie or Bob. Dave doesn't like spam, so he would downvote Bob posts, but then, Dave would have to spent his VP on that instead of curating quality contet. He would earn less on curation. Charlie get his money anyway. If Bob will be continuously downvoted, he will shift to some other accounts,after all he doesn't care about ontent or audience so using multiple accounts posting whatever doesn't change anything. He buy votes, he profits. Dave can try to fight it but it's not easy to spot abuse, and fighting it means losing.
    Eve creates quality content, sometimes curates quality content. Eve has some friends that like her content but they already sold most of their SP to voting services. Even Charlie likes her content but it's far less profitable for him to vote than to just sell it to Bob.

    EIP is aimed at changing that sad image.

    Bob would no longer earn that easily, so will not buy from Charlie at that price, unless he promise to share with curation reward... but then it would have to be some others voting. But why would they vote for Bob's spamy content instead of looking for better curation opportunities? Dave could downvote abuse without being forced to sacrifice his curation efforts. Charlie would rather vote for Eve content because it's good, so there's pretty good chance for decent curation rewards.

    Loading...