Creators being pushed out of STEEM // Time to stop this trend


First they said they would vote more for you if they got 50% curation, now they are saying they will vote you more if you give them another 20%.

Its time to stop this nonsense. I thought writing one post about this issue would be enough and id move on but since this means so much more then it might seem from first glance i had to revisit it again.
Look, when the EIP was coming out i was really skeptical at first but since we got rid of bots my hopes went up and i wanted to give this change a shot.
BUT...

It seems the end result is much worse then what we had before exactly due to "initiatives" like the burnpost and sbdpotato.
I dont care what you do with the rewards, i dont care if you burn them, those posts are shit and i dont want to see them on the trending page.

These initiatives tell me one very concerning thing:

Whales are much happier to simply farm curation on posts like the "SBD potato" and burn the author rewards then use their votes to reward legit content creators.

This is the point at which we arrived now. The trending page being reflective of that fact.
A day ago there was 7-8 SBD potato/Burnpost posts trending.
Why dont you put some effort into those posts?! Is it maybe because you dont feel you need to since the opposition doesnt have enough stake? Showcase some creators if youre going to be trending. Write something.
(At least you @smooth know how to write long comments, you can think up something.)
Its fucking sad that the only way someone will adjust their behavior is if they are forced to by sufficient enough retaliation.

@acidyo wrote a proposition after the short backlash about adding @sbdpotato and @burnpost as beneficiaries as a middle ground and he then will more likely vote your post. Problem is that there is no guarantee that the spam will stop and that also brings me back to my first argument.
Ill do that just this once. Add 20% beneficiaries. Im very curious as to how much actually is left after i appease the curator whales.

In the end it does seem that the whales are willing to vote you most if from those votes, in the end you get nothing.

I wouldnt call myself a content creator, rather an occasional poster but there are legit creators here that see this as a middle finger and rightfully so.

Steem is becoming like the reverse "Overlook Hotel".

We want you to leave!

Consider that.
Cya.


Comments 44


According to the Bible, What does the Bible say about changing religions? (Part 2 of 2)



Comment what you understand of our Youtube Video to receive our full votes. We have 30,000 #SteemPower. It's our little way to Thank you, our beloved friend.

Check our Discord Chat
Join our Official Community: https://beta.steemit.com/trending/hive-182074

10.01.2020 11:32
1

If we want to burn STEEM and support some nice content in the process, voting for quality content with share of the authors rewards set to null as beneficiary looks like the proper thing.

Also a real burn to promote will be if bots accept only posts that have 100% set null as beneficiary.

10.01.2020 11:37
2

The author cut is already only about 35% and now authors are asked to cut their % even more.
They wont let go of their curation but want authors to burn their rewards.

I vote that we have another HF where we make all author rewards go to @null, the SPS and curation. That way we wont need to have any more of these discussions.

10.01.2020 14:56
0

lol

10.01.2020 15:43
0

The burnpost and sbdpotato initiatives are a crock of sh1t. If they really wanted to burn all that steem, why don't those accounts just power down and send the liquid steem to @null

I gave the beneficiary to sbdpotato a go but I won't do it again. The 2-3 steem that's going to get is hardly worth it from me.

The automatic upvoting needs to stop and be disabled, only to be allowed for following manual curation projects with a curation trail.

10.01.2020 11:42
3

why don't those accounts just power down and send the liquid steem to @null

Cause then they'd lose out to those who don't, why jump off a cliff to make the lives of the others better when you can instead use your influence over the inflation to make it cost for everyone equally to fix the peg.

only to be allowed for following manual curation projects with a curation trail.

I think they'd be okay with doing this as long as their initiatives get funded, hence the proposition to burn part of the rewards so they don't have to dish out those daily posts but all authors would fund them with their content instead. Again, there's no personal gain for these initiatives other than wanting STEEM to do better in terms of marketcap and a stable peg.

10.01.2020 12:20
1

Cause then they'd lose out to those who don't, why jump off a cliff to make the lives of the others better when you can instead use your influence over the inflation to make it cost for everyone equally to fix the peg.

10.01.2020 12:24
1

It's kind of the same theory as pre HF when no one wanted to downvote as it would cost them curation/ROI. There's not enough buy pressure on existing SBD on exchanges, whoever pumped it got rekt hard and is probably selling way under ROI back for Bitcoin. It would be irrational to expect them to know what they are holding when they bought the same token way above peg. Some may be buying it who believe Steem will survive this bear market and SBD would be back to peg - I mean it's a pretty good ROI (almost guaranteed 40% at least) if you have some fiat to spare and believe SBD won't be removed or Steem won't go to 0 and die off. Guess the odds are against us now or not enough people care to even know about SBD.

10.01.2020 12:31
1

With the downvote bit, from my point of view and experience, people weren't using the downvotes either because they didn't want to out of fear of retaliation, didn't understand fully what it actually meant (I.e. Not logically thinking that the vote buttons are an indicator of where you want rewards to go) or just wanted to focus on the positive aspect of it - assuming everyone I'm referring to is a genuine person (not taking in to account vote trading and other shady stuff).

I don't think the average user appreciated what having a couple of free dv per day means and it's a vital balancing act if used properly.

I don't know enough about the ins and outs of SBD but I see SBD as probably being pivotal when trading all the new SMTs that are due to come out. Having a stable price for SBD would make the most sense and then STEEM becomes the resource credit to use your account or create accounts with (more like for account functionality and bandwidth) or using non-smt like the steem engine tokens (not sure about this bit though).

I made sure I didn't press "reply" before saying anything this time! Funny how the phone screen becomes most sensitive when you don't want it to, yet wrecks me when it comes to autocorrect lol

10.01.2020 13:00
0

There's almost no demand for SBD. The only thing the Potato will likely achieve, as people like @phgnomo mentioned, is making it a pump and dump token on exchanges.

10.01.2020 18:43
1

They'll need some convincing to ciphen off more rewards.

Yeah, that's what we're trying to do now at least towards the people we with OCD usually curate. If they burn part of the rewards they'll get a higher vote to make up for that percentage and if sbdpotato/burnpost start seeing beneficiary income being generated that matched what their posts generated they'll adjust the amount of posts over time and curate instead as long as the initiative keeps getting funded to fix the peg.

10.01.2020 12:38
2

OK well, I'll try a couple more posts with this experiment but posting from the steemit site is a drag! I'm hoping once SteemPeak integrates with the go live after HF23 it will be a lot easier to write proper posts in communities.

Let's hope more people pick up on this. I'll have a chat with the top 3 panel and see about if we can encourage this experiment in our next month's contest.

10.01.2020 13:03
1

Someone said it's enough to add the hive-174578 tag in the post for it to be visible in communities no matter from where you post, untested from me still.

10.01.2020 13:08
1

Well in the spirit of experimenting, I'll give it a go with my next one 😜 could even go next level with it and try the tag from the steempress plugin and see if it copies over... That would be pretty cool.

Do you know if you can edit beneficiaries after a post has been made or can you only set them before publishing? 🤔

10.01.2020 13:21
0

Well, I just gave that tag a go but don't know if it has appeared in the OCD hive/community. Latest post was this one.

11.01.2020 18:48
0

For me its more about making them stop polluting the trending page and them farming curation on shitposts and burning the author part of it instead of voting quality content (which SBDpotato and Burnposts arent) and real authors.
That is telling me, in this case when theres so many of these posts trending, that whales dont want or need creators. All they need is something to farm curation on. If the other half they wouldnt get anyways (author rewards) is burned, then even better.

10.01.2020 14:47
1

That's why I think auto voting should be disabled and only allowed if your following manual curation trails that focus on quality content. Would still get curation rewards for little effort just by virtue of following the trail.

I'm sure a strategy can be adopted where a couple of whales follow curie, a couple follow c-squared, etc and they rotate the front running account each week so they aren't "hard done" by curation rewards...

Maybe authors can start with the beneficiary to sbdpotato as well but that's assuming those that put in the effort with their posts will get a little bit more upvotes to compensate for setting the beneficiary...

10.01.2020 14:58
0

So first off, I take no credit for the idea as I mentioned at the end of the post, those users have been talking about it way more. Then again it's nothing genius to want to remove the burn posts by getting authors with content on their post to replace them while at the same time still helping to burn steem and maintain the sbd peg. That being said

and he then will more likely vote your post.

We'd vote them higher if we were going to vote them in the first place to make up for the 10-20% burn cut, not vote whatever is burning. Just wanted to make that clear as it seems some people think they can post whatever garbage now and get a free vote because 10% is going to sbdpotato, that would be the same as the initial problem of having those posts trending.

Anyway, I get the whole "they took x amount of post rewards in the latest HF, now they want to take more" but it's a bit flawed as burnpost has existed for over two years now and it gets paused whenever the peg is maintained (AFAIK). I see these initiatives as helping Steem and the authors in the long term even though right now it might mean less rewards for them in general.

I also hate to say this but I don't think we're in a position where we can complain about where the rewardpool goes or that our content is not getting "enough" rewards when there's almost nothing you can compare it to. Mark Zuckerberg is not inflating his FB shares to reward his 2b+ users. Bad analogy probably but you catch my drift, we're not using adrevenue/sponsorships like the usual ways users/authors/influencers monetize their content.

Anyway, fixing the peg, getting sbd back to being printed will help Steem and in turn authors again. This is just a "now" problem and won't persist once bull money starts flowing back in. Saying that "whales" don't want to reward content creators, after they're one of the main reason Steem has had any value for over 3 years (at least until distribution is a lot better and there's way more 1k-50k sp unique accounts having more power over the allocation of the rewardpool) and after rewarding content creators over $70m by now (ask yourself where the majority of accounts with a lot of post rewards on their steemd's are now) is a bit unfair, imo.

They see the need to burn rewards and put buy pressure onto sbd with inflated rewards, they don't want to clog up trending either since we for once are getting a good content discovery and pob going. So let's meet them halfway to help fund their initiatives while getting higher votes for the amount we burn to at least equal it out and at the end of the day it just means extra visibility for the authors (which is literally the main proposition of bid bots so there must be some benefit to getting that).

10.01.2020 12:17
2

We'd vote them higher if we were going to vote them in the first place to make up for the 10-20% burn cut, not vote whatever is burning.

Sure, i think most understood what you meant.

but it's a bit flawed as burnpost has existed for over two years now

True, but it doesnt matter how long it existed. Now its trending with sbdpotato and thats what i care about. The "now". Whales are choosing to support shitposts over legit creators otherwise there wouldnt be nearly as much of those posts trending.
Thats the problem.
Curators said: "Give us 50% of the rewards and we will vote more!" Why the fuck am i seeing $60 shitposts on the trending page then? And so many of them.
And now authors are being convinced to give up 10-20% more?
You see the issue?
Whales (except say OCD or Dan) are more then inclined to burn the author side of the vote then give it to creators. If that wasnt the case, again, not so many of those posts and their comments even, would be trending.
I find that insane.

I also hate to say this but I don't think we're in a position where we can complain about where the rewardpool goes or that our content is not getting "enough" rewards when there's almost nothing you can compare it to.

Of course you have a frame of reference. Youre a curator, youve seen a million good posts and a million shitty ones.
Where do you put low effort copy pasted posts?
In the shit bin.
Thats the only comparison you need.

they don't want to clog up trending either since we for once are getting a good content discovery and pob going. So let's meet them halfway to help fund their initiatives while getting higher votes for the amount we burn to at least equal it out and at the end of the day it just means extra visibility for the authors (which is literally the main proposition of bid bots so there must be some benefit to getting that).

Will they give up a part of their curation? I hardly think so.
I have no problem for voting their proposal if they gtfo the trending since that SBD from the SPS authors wouldnt see anyways.
I question that every one of those that vote those posts even support the proposal.

The bidbot proposition can be done via @null when no one gets anything.

10.01.2020 15:13
1

Okay yeah I see your point a bit better now, basically why putting a share of the author rewards towards this instead of curation rewards. Well, yeah, no liquid curation rewards and it's a lot more difficult to get rid of powered up stake than new liquid stake phsychologically, especially if I were in a position again where I'd be powering everything up like my dumbass was in 2018 I'd have a harder time burning part of the curation rewards than author rewards as well.

I guess the question is do all these posts deserve the post rewards they are getting. This is not from a case to case basis but in general if the content is bringing in a lot of traffic or keeping content consumers here. If you'd look at engagement, even though that's kind of handicapped right now in terms of rewards due to the penalty, you wouldn't think some posts would deserve $40-60 when there's maybe 10 comments on them where half of them are bots. It's hard to say the effectiveness of traffic without a viewcounter, even for #posh it's hard to determine it. I don't know, I guess that's the question it boils down to and I'm guessing many stakeholders choose to reward the burnpost initiatives instead or feel there is enough curating stake already being used.

10.01.2020 16:13
2

I'm guessing many stakeholders choose to reward the burnpost initiatives instead or feel there is enough curating stake already being used.

But is it though? If theres 7-8 burnpost/sbdpotato posts trending with 5 more comments at 15$ on each of the posts can you really say theres enough curation stake being used???
Id say thats not the case at all and its very far from what was "promised" with the EIP.

you wouldn't think some posts would deserve $40-60 when there's maybe 10 comments on them where half of them are bots.

I mean sure that might as well be the case but the only way for you to see for sure if they will have more then 10 comments or not (if the authors not already known) is if you vote them. Votes and whales in large part determine placement, engagement and the views.
Whales also determine what kind of content frontends should showcase, thus "showing the world" what STEEM is about.

I wouldnt use "initial" engagement as a trustworthy measure but rather the engagement that comes afterwards.
My posts generally do well in that department because i have been here for a long time and are involved in the nonsense but i always discourage people from voting authors with my type of content in favor of those that arent so involved in the daily Steem discussion, those that are just good at what they do. That takes away from the diversity and motivation of those that just want to create if the focus is far away from non Steem content.
And now its not even those that write about STEEM that are the most rewarded ones. Its token burning, curation farming shitposts that get the rewards and attention.

10.01.2020 17:06
0

I wouldnt use "initial" engagement as a trustworthy measure but rather the engagement that comes afterwards.

Myeah I think engagement in general is pretty dead, either posts are uninteresting, the author has no followers/regulars that comment or they're too long and no one bothers reading them, look at this one that's trending now for instance, it has 2 genuine comments:

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@zacknorman97/a-new-dawn-the-best-tech-trends-and-gadgets-at-ces-2020

So why not spend some rewards into burning? (which helps everyone)

Sure you can call it curation farming but those people front-run other places too, it's just something that the system allows right now. Can't blame some people trying to fix the economy by voting on those posts late with their stake (@smooth for instance does this) and then having a ton of curators try to front-run each other.

10.01.2020 17:43
1

"... I think engagement in general is pretty dead, either posts are uninteresting, the author has no followers/regulars..."

Engagement has been deliberately killed by the rewards curve. There's no incentive to comment when your comments will not receive rewards. That's a direct result of focusing on curation rewards and reducing author rewards, and a prime example of how EIP put the cart before the horse.

Engagement is one of the best mechanisms to improve the social network, and it is one of the most savaged casualties of EIP.

11.01.2020 04:09
2

Well I wouldn't say there's no incentive at all, but for the rewards we have something in mind with ocd soon and talking to an engagement pro about it now. ;)

11.01.2020 06:27
1

All of these arguments ignore the fact that a healthy social network is the best route to ROI for investors.

"...after rewarding content creators over $70m by now..."

is extremely disingenuous, because the vast majority of those author rewards were part of some scheme or another that either featured self votes or circle jerks.

The fact is that focusing on ROI and considering cash king is killing the social network.

Potato posts are a symptom of the disease of rapine. ROI is not the purpose of social networking, and trying to design Steem to produce ROI first reduces it's value to society for mere lunch money for whales.

Put the horse in front of the cart. Content imbues Steem with value, and ROI can dramatically result from that - but only if investors actually invest in the social network, rather than simply seek to extract returns from it.

Eliminate curation rewards completely. This focuses ROI on capital gains completely, rather than financial manipulation which so degrades the social network. The FAANGs reveal that social media is the most profitable business model extant, but only if the society is the horse pulling the cart.

Do that and all this crap haggling over upvote timing, burning tokens, and taxing creators to fund business lunches for investors vanishes, allowing society to interact naturally and produce extremely valuable networking. Focusing on extracting Steem into the wallets of whales kills the social network.

Investors should be building the network and looking for capital gains that result from building something of value to society. Society is the source of value, and financial returns aren't the purpose of society. Financial returns are a product of society that will produce capital gains, if the whales get their financial interests out of the way of growing Steem social media.

11.01.2020 04:00
1

ROI is not the purpose of social networking, and trying to design Steem to produce ROI first reduces it's value to society for mere lunch money for whales.

Based on looking into Larimer some time back, I think it was a great concept/vehicle he chose to experiment with. His goal was to figure a means to spread tokens easily, with little impediment/hoops for those receiving them. His logic being that the easier it is to get tokens into the masses hands, the better chance for mass adoption. I assume the unspoken part of this logic is that if it were to attain a certain mass it would then become unstoppable.

Given how addicted the masses are to social networking (damn it does seem like a drug to so many, just look at the zombies who can't pull their faces out of their phones for a minute), it would seem the perfect vehicle to achieve this. Sadly, he failed to account for human nature and how that would affect/skew when larger holders could set up their own structures within the main structure.

My dad was keen on the idea that many ideas looked great on paper, but would most often fail once people were involved.

13.01.2020 05:31
1

I agree completely. I suspect that Larimer's own susceptibility to mammon and pecuniary focus factored into the susceptibility that Steem features to the same forces. I note that EOS has increased those susceptibilities, insofar as I have any grasp of EOS, which is as limited as I could make it.

The fat lady ain't sung yet, and Steem could still rationally redirect the incentives in the code to bring social interactions to the fore, and allow natural growth to produce healthy and productive capital gains to result from social benefits Steem creates, which I intend to await while that remains possible.

Things can seem impossible and utterly ignored until they suddenly happen, which is basically life in a nutshell. All of us are doomed to be food for something, and it's amazing we have enjoyable quality of life at all given the incredible array of things ready, willing, and able to eat us.

Also, I like posting here, and enjoy the content that challenges my grasp of reality, as well as the insightful criticism wiser folks than I can provide that enables my grasp to grow. I wouldn't even mind Bernie's flags if he'd add constructive criticism. However, rabid ad hominems are almost all I've ever seen from him, so prefer flags in silence.

Anyway, if Steem never pulls it off, either something else will, or we'll all go to our dooms without that transcendent social network that could be. I don't need lunch money from my social interactions, and wish more folks saw social networks as the more valuable wellsprings rational people seek than as ATMs.

Thanks!

17.01.2020 12:57
2

Fuck this shit.

10.01.2020 12:46
1

We need to unite an steem community opposition to show them whales, they can't do what they want.
The reward pool isn't theirs, and just cuz they have a big stake, they still ain't the pool king.

Will be fun.

10.01.2020 13:56
1

They act normal for a month or two then its the same shit again.

10.01.2020 15:16
0

so u're disillusioned and surrender?

10.01.2020 15:26
0

pff. Fuck no. As long as block are being created theres a chance to change things.

10.01.2020 15:39
1

And this is how STEEM dies in the end. Greedy Whales taking whatever little is left of creators. Fuck this shit. Maybe steemit 2.0 is much needed after all.

10.01.2020 15:19
0

I read the tea leaves last summer and powered down most of my SP. Since then Steemit has seemed like a zombie fight over the last few fresh brains.

10.01.2020 15:35
0

If we continue like this, it will be all over soon. Why would “the masses” come to this platform?

10.01.2020 16:02
1

I'm not exactly a fan of the: give us money other ways and maybe we'll stop doing something the visually unappealing thing to get it. 'We understand your concerns.' Meanwhile, their placeholder shitposts are stronger than ever on trending.

10.01.2020 18:02
2

Hi @lordbutterfly!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.915 which ranks you at #4436 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 91 contributions, your post is ranked at #42.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • You're on the right track, try to gather more followers.
  • The readers like your work!
  • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

10.01.2020 20:22
0

i think you got this wrong. I'm sure this post should be ranked at #41.958

check your math... dumbass :)

10.01.2020 22:01
0

Why dont you put some effort into those posts?! Is it maybe because you dont feel you need to since the opposition doesnt have enough stake? SHOWCASE SOME CREATORS IF YOURE GOING TO BE TRENDING. Write something.

Here here HEAR HEAR!! ...but everyone knows whales doesn't have ears. :p

11.01.2020 00:14
0

I note that crashing the value of Steem is probably the best way to prove to profiteers that actual productive investment is a more profitable business model. Valuable content creators aren't being rewarded because that value isn't Steem, but societal values that are of far more utility and relevance to people. People aren't wallets.

Whales act like they are wallets. This is killing the goose that lays golden eggs: social networks and society itself is the source of all economic benefit, not the other way around. Profiteers seek to extract that economic value at the cost of all else, which you note is ongoing, and this is destroying the value of the social network built on Steem, which is destroying the value of their stakes.

Productive investment a la Warren Buffet style would be focused on growing the social network based on Steem, which will produce upwards price pressure on Steem, and produce ROI for investors. Content creators are the source of social interactions, and engagement results that can grow the value of the network.

Instead viewing cash as king extracts any incentives that can encourage social interactions on Steem and this is killing the network, and destroying the value of stake. I'm all for reducing the value of Steem to a fraction of what it is today, because that would dislodge all the profiteers, and enable the control of the code to be gained by folks that grasp that the strength of the social network, of society, is the source of capital gains potential.

Thanks!

11.01.2020 04:23
0

.

11.01.2020 06:39
0

The EIP was shit from the beginning. it should be rolled back, downvotes could stay, but the curve should be linear and curation rewards lower again.

11.01.2020 16:43
0

!bookkeeping steemmonsters

14.02.2020 11:03
0

Hi @lordbutterfly!

steemmonsters

Received:

  • 1940.576 STEEM
  • 0.000 STEEM from Affiliate
  • 0.000 STEEM from tournament prizes
  • 216.798 SBD
  • 0.000 SBD from Affiliate

    Spent:

  • 220.571 STEEM
  • 1.000 STEEM for tournament entry fees
  • 12.551 SBD

    Total:

  • 1719.005 STEEM
  • 204.247 SBD
14.02.2020 11:06
0