RE: Member Delegation Report 10 September 2019 by trafalgar

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @steembasicincome/member-delegation-report-10-september-2019

· @trafalgar ·
$0.05
The reward pool is meant to be used to uncover and reward content that stakeholders deem would add value to the Steem blockchain via consensus. It is not a form passive staking returns to be internalized by delegators in some elaborate vote swapping scheme.

Now that NewSteem has provided us with the tools to combat this type of behavior, you would likely expect some resistance.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id79,928,887
authortrafalgar
permlinkpxp5fw
categorycommunity
json_metadata{"tags":["community"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
created2019-09-12 02:26:30
last_update2019-09-12 02:26:30
depth1
children3
net_rshares350,439,932,996
last_payout2019-09-19 02:26:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.039 SBD
curator_payout_value0.006 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length381
author_reputation4,860,340,175,990,226
root_title"Member Delegation Report 10 September 2019"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@steembasicincome · (edited)
$0.07
Steem Basic Income is delivered through upvotes specifically so that regular value-adding activity is required. It's not about passive stake and vote-swapping.

In fact the core mechanic works more like a parallel account-level curation stream. Accounts are initially sponsored for support, and the sponsor is also enrolled (50/50 curation reward). External blacklists (@steemcleaners and @buildawhale) are followed for quality control, along with abuse reporting within our own Discord.

A brief review comparing accounts sponsored into Steem Basic Income with accounts that had similar characteristics but were not enrolled finds that retention and activity rates are substantially higher for accounts enrolled into Steem Basic Income. (@paulag did such a review for us some time ago, but it could be easily replicated now). 

A sampling of mention history shows that many accounts have identified Steem Basic Income as being the primary motivation for their continued activity through the difficult periods Steem has been passing through.

While the primary metric being used to evaluate Delegation applications for Steemit is account creation, shouldn't account retention be considered just as important? Retention of actual active users is critical to Steem's survival, and Steem Basic Income provides a massive amount of value to the Steem blockchain via improved retention of existing accounts.
👍  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
properties (23)
post_id79,939,386
authorsteembasicincome
permlinkre-trafalgar-pxpug7
categorycommunity
json_metadata{"tags":["community"],"app":"steempeak\/1.16.1"}
created2019-09-12 11:26:42
last_update2019-09-12 11:28:39
depth2
children2
net_rshares335,756,979,491
last_payout2019-09-19 11:26:42
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.037 SBD
curator_payout_value0.036 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,401
author_reputation303,544,397,979,072
root_title"Member Delegation Report 10 September 2019"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (16)
@trafalgar ·
Retention obtained via bribes being handed out through some ponzi share mechanic is precisely what's harming our platform. We don't need more people milking the system, we need the rewards flowing honestly from stakeholders to great content creators without this decision being affected by kickbacks and other transactions.

This is costly to our system and undermines purely honest curation endeavors. Our system can't sustain itself if people are making their voting decisions for reasons such as an obligation to vote on certain content based on shares which is just an elaborate vote buying scheme.

Things are different in NewSteem. Activities that serve to potentially undermine organic voting will undergo considerably scrutiny and resistance over time.
properties (22)
post_id79,941,005
authortrafalgar
permlinkpxpy77
categorycommunity
json_metadata{"tags":["community"],"app":"steemit\/0.1"}
created2019-09-12 12:47:42
last_update2019-09-12 12:47:42
depth3
children1
net_rshares0
last_payout2019-09-19 12:47:42
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length760
author_reputation4,860,340,175,990,226
root_title"Member Delegation Report 10 September 2019"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
@steembasicincome · (edited)
$0.07
While we do offer bonuses for upvoting our posts, there is no obligation. Every component in our system is 100% voluntary and people choose to participate or choose not to participate based on their own evaluation.

We have done a whole series in the past on how our sustainability metrics work and the efforts we undergo to ensure that Steem Basic Income never becomes a ponzi scheme, even accidentally.

Steem is fixated on a content-based curation model -> what is the value of *this* piece of content? Should this content have been rewarded so high? does it have paid votes, etc.

We are building a patreon-like account account-based curation model on top of that. What is the value of this account? Am I willing to contribute to a crowdfunded support model for it?

You started with a reference to the rewards pool as a limited resource... which is true in a sense. However, the **value** of that limited resource is unlimited. A low-friction patreon-like support model could bring massive amounts of value to Steem, increasing the value of the reward pool for everyone, regardless of whether or not they choose to participate in patreon-like support.

Try to look at the big picture?
👍  , , , , , , , , , , , ,
properties (23)
post_id79,945,002
authorsteembasicincome
permlinkre-trafalgar-pxq5if
categorycommunity
json_metadata{"tags":["community"],"app":"steempeak\/1.16.1"}
created2019-09-12 15:25:36
last_update2019-09-12 15:40:24
depth4
children0
net_rshares315,766,718,190
last_payout2019-09-19 15:25:36
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.035 SBD
curator_payout_value0.034 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,189
author_reputation303,544,397,979,072
root_title"Member Delegation Report 10 September 2019"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (13)