Should STEMGeeks switch to linear curation?

in LeoFinance22 days ago

Recently we reviewed how curators are doing on STEMGeeks and were blown away by how much APR they are pulling in. One curator is doing 195% APR with the others doing 30-60%.

This got me thinking about the recent change on LEO to linear curation. I am kind of on the fence about the change there are merits for both but I tend to prefer some sort of reverse auction but am open to the opinion of the community.

AccountSTEM Power7-Day Average CurationAPR
@stem.curate73,33552/day25.8%
@abh12345.stem80,794124/day56%
@yggdrasil.laguna122,060203/day61%
@tonimontana51,343275/day195%

If you currently curate on STEMGeeks, what is your opinion? Do you prefer the current curation system or liner curation where everyone has a level playing field.

As I said before, I am open to either option. I would like to get some feedback from curators on which they would prefer.

STEMGeeks has few dedicated curators which presents good opportunity for others who want to get involved. The curation rewards are among the highest on Hive, if not the highest right now.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Sort:  

I dont know, I just started curating in the last week so haven't gotten my first payouts yet. LOL

The advantage I saw to the change with LEO is in comments. People started doing a lot of more upvoting on comments since it didnt matter about finding the "best" (most upvoted) content. It did make the autovoters less profitable which may or may not be a problem on here.

Overall, it seems the Leo community is happier with the new reward system so it probably would not hurt STEMgeeks in the least. Give it a try for a month and see what happens. The worst scenario is it is changed back if people are not happy with it.

Linear curation is far more fair. I have never understood why people doing zero work (auto-voting) should get better rewards for people who actually take the time to read and comment on posts.

Yep, I am using an autovoter bc sometimes I don't have the time to use all my 10 100% votes (if you are having more HP you will mostly vote more with less %) but it's kind of wrong that autovotes get a bigger piece of the cake than manual votes

And the reverse auction thing to find good posts and promote it is kind of broken if autovotes dominate the whole chain.

So yeah change to linear rewards.

Uploading image #1...

It would level the playing field between manual curators and those that use autovotes. However, if the curation rewards change to a linear formula but the reward allocation is none linear you could have a situation where the most profitable play would be to vote only on the "trending" page. So there could be other tradeoffs.

I would probably benefit since I only vote manually.

I would prefer linear, so I do not have to worry about how soon after someone posts I vote. I would prefer to vote manually, but cannot spend a lot of time just waiting for new content to show up.

Yes. The hive curation project has failed.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

 22 days ago (edited)

I disagree.

Of course.

It would be a new experience that users of this great platform would be living. Leo made it attracted more users, more people who comment, so do not think twice

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

yes. Don't know about stemgeeks but there are lot of bots that upvote at 6 second and make decent amount of token without contributing anything.

I believe there incentives should be taken away.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

A change might encourage new investors and more manual curation. At present, some of the larger stakeholders auto-vote very early. Leofinance seems to be doing alright since they switched, but the change is probably not the only factor.

I'm not too fussed either way.

Anything that encourages manual curation over autovoting is a win in my eyes. Make the switch.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta