RE: Economic Improvement Proposal - Noob look on it
i see that my free write rambling got 2 from 5 people (almost 50% so it is my fault) confused about dust vote :D i even had no idea that there are talks about changing the dust vote. from what i learned till now the dust is around 0.020 - 0.025
Now that new user got to 20-30 posts with most dust votes on his posts, but some get to 0.50$ and then he learns that he gets only 0.25 and on some front ends not even that.
with this part i was just trying to demonstrate that new users get mostly nothing and maybe few posts will get something (with new curve a lot less) and after initial happiness of getting half of a buck he then sees that half will be given to curators. now reading this, if it is 45:45 and then for example dtube takes 10 so creator would get 35% from his post.
i look on SPS as a done deal and i forgot about it, it is what it is, and it will be funded as they decide, and yes it could be good for the chain.
no one told us how EIP would do good for new people. and i HOPE that everyone on the chain wants more people here. But with this it looks like big stakeholders want the social network with 1000 people, then you don't even have to think who you would vote for, we could have a consensus to vote for same 100 people, they get half, we get half...
Ah, no I apologize as I misunderstood what you meant 🙂
There is no talk of the dust vote “changing” rather the discussion about the curve and how it will effect the dust was part of the discussion, which hasn’t been determined yet and may not be effected at all.
The EIP is something that many have been discussing for years, so I think they just sort of a assume everyone knows about it etc. I disagree with that attitude and think it should be explained in detail and how they see it benefiting the platform long term and have told them so.
I can say that everyone here wants Steem to be mainstream and the goals are always how to attract more people here, it’s just we need to attract all sorts of people, including investors and end users a like. Sometimes it’s hard in a decentralized environment to get the organization needed to achieve these things as quickly and wanted.
I don’t want to try to defend their proposal, as I’m really not a huge fan of how it’s being done, but in theory if all the pieces worked as they should then authors would make more.
This would be due to the fact that investors would see the value of delegating to curation efforts rather than bid bots or to spam and upvote themselves. (Due to the consequence that could come from downvotes for doing so). Also because the downvote pool would help change the abusive culture, which gives more to the rewards pool to be allocated to users.
None of this is set in stone and will not be until Steemit Inc. releases a code and sets a date for the HF, then a consensus of the top witnesses has to agree to run the code. Only then will these changes (maybe not even all of them) go into effect.
Then if it doesn’t give the wanted result, a change can be made to try something else.. this truly is an experimental platform and with that comes trial and error. The rewards mechanism currently is broken and is incentivizing abuse which is bad for everyone as well as the longevity of Steem. This proposal is an attempt to fix things.
do agree that something needs to change, but no one told me what effect would this have on new users and users that are not that new but still not evolved to mammals. except when steem will be 10$ everyone will be happy.
i said it few times in the past, helping steem grow should be in the interest of big stakeholders and not on the back of small ones. if steem goes to 10$ i would maybe afford to go to steemfest, but a holder of 500.000 steem will afford to go to steem fest, to by a lambo, and a vila.