Let's face it people that invest here don't just give away their money . They want to make as much profit as possible.
Yes... conditionally. I think part of what gets overlooked in this discussion is TIME HORIZON. Maximizing profit NOW doesn't always make sense if it causes a long term loss.
It's great that people want to make money from their auto-upvote, auto-curate, delegation schemes, but if the RESULT of making a few thousand dollars a week is LOSING 50% of the value of the Steem token because it earns a reputation as a shitcoin on the shoulders of it's flagship front end being a pit of spam and plagiarism, what good is that?
Let's just take our original poster here @blocktrades. It may be very profitable to delegate that $5 million to various "programs," but if the USE of those programs means the original principal of $5 declines in value to say $2 million over 18 months... that's not so clever.
I spend more time thinking about the long term value of Steem than most I suspect. I didn't decide to get into the delegation business without plenty of thought. But not every user of Steem is heavily invested in Steem for the long term, and the system needs to be designed to prevent them from damaging its long term value.
That is what I respect most about you. Unlike other exchange services, you are heavily invested in the platform. It is great you are starting this conversation. I don't think delegation business would be a good long-term strategy though. I have thought about it, and for me to be able to buy SP delegation and break even I would have to spend it mostly on self-upvotes rather than on curating. As you have already said that would just encourage more self-upvotes and second-hand vote selling.
But I am sure you have thought more about these matters than me and you would be more knowledgeable.
Part of my idea is to make it profitable to buy an SP delegation. Since a few whales currently have the majority of the voting SP, there are only a few ways to get a reasonable number of curators who can impact votes: 1) have the whales sell off most of their SP to new curators or 2) have the whales delegate SP to new curators.
I think 2 is the most feasible route in the short term, which then just leaves it down to what method should whales use to delegate their Steem: they can either directly negotiate with a curator for a split of the curation rewards or they can use an automated system that new curators can purchase from.
Originally, I was directly negotiating such deals, but that doesn't result in a lot of new curators. With the automated system, we get a lot more potential curators. But for this to work, such curators need to have a blockchain where they can profit from it.
...Or maybe work with successful curation guilds who have a reputation of giving back value to the steem ecosystem through manual curation, supporting them to replicate their similar models for better reach. @curie comes top of mind, having distributed over 1m SBD (~5% of Steemit total) to quality creators, and a lot to active curators.
See the post from @stellabelle with her menu of potential curators for whales to delegate to. It has met with great applause from minnows, but only she and @fulltimegeek seem to be interested in participating as whales.
Maybe there is something in her idea that could work for you and others. Here's the post if you haven't seen it: https://steemit.com/voteselling/@stellabelle/dear-freedom-and-whales-here-s-a-sp-delegatee-menu-to-solve-the-vote-selling-problem
This is only generally true.
I would pay 100% of curation rewards, and neither sell votes, nor self vote, for such a delegation, because I am not here for rewards.
There are others besides myself that would do this too.
A society is more than just an economy.
@fulltimegeek and @stellabelle have proved this.
Automate such contractual arrangements, and I will be the first in line, and I will not be alone.
Maybe you should talk to @ned about that one. Are you aware of his plan to start selling upvotes and downvotes? Do you realize how many accounts are auto-posting shit using your own delegation services or services you've delegated to? Yet you bring this up because of a few posts and comments you don't like... Open your eyes, you're part of the problem.
I also want to note here that you haven't provided any data to back up any of the claims you've made about harm to the system, but that's typical around here.
Respectfully, don't you sell SP delegations and votes yourself as well? If so, by your logic you would be in the equation of this problem too.
Also, I made an open offer to all whale down below. Delegate me some good SP, I will return 60% of curation rewards. No self-votes and SP will be used on posts that add value to the platform. Or you can come up with your own rules and guidelines for curating. If not me, I am sure there are a lot of experienced curators out there that would take this kind of deal. I believe this kind of mechanism would make Steem work for everybody and in a long-term make investors rich. Encouraging adding value to the platform will add significant value to Steem itself, which will mean huge returns on the investment.
Srsly?
Noooo..
Rly?
0_o
MFW
Hello, I have a question/observation as do others who do not wish to write it out on here. When you are delegating to some who as you know have used the power you delegated them for bad, do you take that into account when continuing to delegate to them. Basically, there is no vetting or did you have any conversations with some of your larger SP holders on not weaponizing the SP you are doing biz transactions with. Let us propose a scenario: You are aware someone is actively paying/supporting violence/criminal activity or such (again this is just a scenario ;) ).........what do you do? Are you going to establish any type of ethical basis or not so much? Asking for a friend, thanks so much for any insight you have into this.
for anyone reading this curious as to who someone is getting their delegations from here is a nice and handy tool to see. Have a wonderful and extra special day (for the ecosystem)
http://www.steemreports.com/delegation/
"Maximizing profit NOW doesn't always make sense if it causes a long term loss."
somebody needs a lesson on how markets work
OK, I'll bite. How DO markets work? And I mean real markets, not just market theory as contained in economics textbooks...
People all have different concepts of morals, all have a different set of abilities and short-term goals. The problem with a market is that it can pit these two groups against each other. One group might want to stop starvation, while the other might want to stop climate change.
Both could easily be achieved with our level of resources, but due to markets each member of society can only do a small amount. Investment is often the best way to increase this amount. The problem is the most profitible investments also tend to be the most destructive.
To be the most effective to save those starving I must invest in something very profitable, like big oil. To stop climate change I would have to investment in something that creates the horrible labor conditions that causes the starvation, like mining.
If I wanted to help both, I would make less profit and be unable to help what I care about most. That creates the situation where even if I don't do it, others will. So all I can do is put myself in the bad position and try to make the most of it.
The same situation applies to stuff like the curation rewards talked about on the post
Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate your perspective... I am often an "odd fish" because I don't approach problem solving like many people tend to.
I have always been a long-term thinker, and when I encounter something positive my first thought tends to be: "How can we turn this positive into 5-year, 10-year, 50-year benefit?"
It is an approach motivated by seeking safety... I will forego maximum profit NOW in exchange for moderate profit in perpetuity.
So getting back to Steemit and the curation rewards issue, my approach tends to be motivated by "Let's take the approach most likely to ensure there will still BE a Steemit to offer curation rewards, 10 years from now."
Thanks again for the explanation.
"maximum profit NOW in exchange for moderate profit in perpetuity."
then you will never be as powerful as those who seek it now. The only way to beat them is to destroy the system
That's a very good explanation of markets.
Newp.
Starvation - maybe. It isn't resources, but policy, as you point out, that causes starvation.
Stop climate change? Not in our lifetime, probably not until we can build a Dyson Sphere.
Maybe we can mitigate, or even fully eliminate, human contributions to climate - if we can even figure out what they are, which we sure as hell haven't yet.
E.g. What is the impact on climate of increase in detritovores in the deep ocean, resulting from definning sharks?
No one has any idea.
Of course this is only true if your investement is 'loyal' to the vehicle.
But, if investors are only here to milk short term profits, then no matter what strategy we devise they are going to be a long term detriment to the platform.
The investors that care only about profit, and not the manner in which the profit is earned, might as well start mining organs in war zones.
I reckon investors in Steem invest here for more than just profits.
This is exactly right! If we allow shit content to be the rule rather than the exception, then the value of STEEM will fall off a cliff and no matter how many you have in your wallet you are not going to be doing very well.
Great point denmarkguy!
You make a splendid point ! Indeed if we would just all be on the same page then Steem would become worth much more if we share and don't self upvote.
Right now many might join Steemit but I have a feeling that the number that leave is even bigger.
The newcomers are what breaths new life, if we don't find away to take care of them we might soon be self upvoting with SBD SBD worth a few cents
Of course, the inverse of that is also true. Even if an investment entailed reduced ROI, or losses, if they resulted in nominal upwards movement in Steem, they'd be profitable.
It's sorta a prisoner's dilemma though, because one investor's lossy investments that caused the tide to rise would cause his competitors to attain better ROI, because they didn't undertake the initiating lossy investment.
This is why cash is king.
Good point!