Now BLURT, HIVE, STEEM... I understand that the compensation ratio for all authors and investors (curation) is five to five.
Please seriously consider replacing this compensation ratio with 4 (author) : 6 (investor)
Author (4) : Investors (6)
We expect a lot of opposition from the authors, but the BLURT management really needs to see what the real balance is.
I'm sure BLURT will help us make a breakthrough.
As a Korean investor who loves BLURT so much dares to ask for it with great courage, I would like to ask the BLURT Foundation and the BLURT witnesses to take a serious look at this proposal.
Thank you
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
BLURT 재단 및 BLURT 증인들에게, 저자와 투자자 (큐레이션) 보상비율에 관한 건의를 요청합니다
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
현재 BLURT, HIVE, STEEM.. 모든 저자와 투자자 (큐레이션) 보상비율이 5 : 5 로 알고 있습니다
이 보상비율을 4 (저자) : 6 (투자자) 으로 교체하는 것을 진지하게 검토 부탁드립니다
저자(4) : 투자자(6)
저자들의 많은 반대가 예상되지만서도, 진정한 균형이 무엇인지 BLURT 운영진은 정말 크게 보셔야 합니다
분명 BLURT 가 획기적으로 발전하는데 정말 많은 도움이 되리라 확신합니다
BLURT 를 너무나도 사랑하는 한국의 한 투자자가 큰 용기 내어 감히 청하는 바이니, 부디 이 제안에 대하여 BLURT 재단 및 BLURT 증인들은 진지한 검토 다시 한 번 부탁드리겠습니다
감사합니다
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
请BLURT财团及BLURT见证人提出关于作者和投资者（curation）补偿比率的建议
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
现在BLURT, HIVE, STEEM.. 所有作者和投资者（Curration）补偿比率为5:5
请认真研究将该补偿比率改为"4（作者）:6（投资者）。"
作者(4):投资者(6)
虽然可以预想到作者的很多反对，但是BLURT的运营团队还是要大张旗鼓地看到底什么是真正的均衡是什么？
我确信BLURT一定会对划时代的发展起到很大的帮助
非常热爱BLURT的韩国一位投资者鼓起勇气，敢于请求的拜尼，请BLURT财团和BLURT的证人再次对这个提案进行认真的研究。
谢谢。
I do not agree that the investor should get more than the person putting in the effort making the content.
As a witness I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS
My opinion is never that investors should get more than writers.
You have a great misunderstanding.
I'm asking you to take a deep look at what's the best balance between writers and investors.
Don't think too simply, but I hope you think big about what's the best balance for Blurt's future.
Thank you for listening to my opinion.
I think that @rycharde
Is the most qualified person to give you a detailed reply on this matter. Personally I find it quite interesting. I worry about stuff like self voting and automated voting harming curation quality. My feeling is that making blurt full of genuinely high-quality content and keeping transaction fees high is what is going to lead to a valuable and powerful network.
I would like to see transaction fees at least 10x what they are today.
my reasoning behind that is that I believe with higher transaction fees there is less incentive to shitpost.
Now your proposal: actually I understand it.
I think what you're saying is that investors who hold blurt power both secure the network and have an economic stake in the system, so they should take a larger share of the rewards also I believe that what you're saying in your reply to @skyline buds It was basically along the lines of you're not arguing that authors should get less, you are arguing that the value that investors bring be better recognized.
@rycharde is assisting us likely in a formal capacity in making the economy of blurt easier to understand and more effective, better primed for growth. I don't know if you ever looked at the economic source code but it is really rather difficult to comprehend. I'll be very frank with you, I have probably read I'd say not 100% of the blurt source code but 90%, let's say and I have read and reread and reread and reread the economic stuff and I don't really get it.
That is, until I read @rycharde's most recent post.
he did a great job of simplifying the complex economic system that we have here on blurt. I do suggest that you follow him and ask him lots of questions because we are making economic changes and certainly I would consider the change that you have described here however I want to get his opinion because quite frankly he is lead on this because he is incredibly good at math.
I wrote a reply below but just thought of another thing.
This whole argument has been plagued by confusing and obfuscating language, starting with the Steem whitepaper that claims that every voter is a curator. Not true in reality.
We have financial-curators (reward seeking) and human-curators (content support). We also have a distinction between passive-investors and active-investors.
Indeed, we can say that financial-curators are the same as active-investors - that's what they do.
So we have 3 categories of people, all of whom may feel justified in their activities and whose needs an economy should seek to balance.
Just trying to clarify terms as I've seen mountains of comments with people arguing at cross-purposes coz using the same words with different meanings.
Thank you.
I read, read, read, read and read what you were trying to say.
Your idea is wonderful.
I am very sympathetic and agreeable.
And I've got a lot of information.
God bless you all the time.
Thank you.
Hi, I saw your link to this post.
I'm a bit confused though - you made a suggestion to change the reward split 40/60 for author/curator and yet say that, "My opinion is never that investors should get more than writers. You have a great misunderstanding."
So is there a proposal or is this just launching a discussion?
Please also feel free to write a more thorough post in Korean, perhaps with a short English summary, but online translators are not bad and we can always ask questions if anything unclear.
However, to put this in some historical context, rewards used to be 75/25 to authors. It was changed to 50/50 within the EIP in HF21 and the reason given was just not true. The real reason was to allow whale votes to rake in curation rewards without effort so as to make up for lost income from supporting bidbots! ;-) If that may appear overly cynical then it is in equal measure true.
I look forward to reading your further thoughts.
Thanks!
I read all your comments, including those above.
First of all, thank you so much for taking your time to listen to my opinion.
What you're trying to say is, I understand 90%.
I feel so sorry that I didn't learn English today.
As I relied on the translator, I realized that it was really, really hard to get my point across to others 100 percent.
Don't worry too much.~~
Next time, I'm going to have an in-depth discussion on this topic.
Once again, I would like to thank you for your valuable time.
Thank you very much.. 🙇♂️🙋♂️
Thanks! Just on the language issue, I do speak other languages and am used to using online translators, and can see when something is just totally wrong - often idiomatic phrases don't translate. Even on Discord there are now real-time translators - so you can immediately see when something gets translated totally wrongly!
Is certainly an important issue and look forward to more discussions.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @r2cornell-curate.
Also, find us on Discord (https://discord.gg/BAn2amn)
I don't know English well, so I don't know it in detail, but I think you're doing a very interesting job.
You seem to be working on a project that supports Africa..Anyway, I sincerely appreciate your listening to my opinion.
I really like and respect everyone who works hard for Blurt..^^
How about
30% for authors 70% for curators?
3:7 Wow..I think this is a little too much..😅😅😅
HahaHa
Blurt likes thinking outside the box and this is really good sometimes
3:7 could spark the interest of investors even more and external funds could flow into blurt
Beucause on blurt it pays to be a curator than an author
That is what 3:7 can do
Epato365 I think your mind is really great.
I understand 100 percent what you mean.
And I've been thinking and thinking about your opinion.
I need more time to think.
I will spend a lot of time trying to find the best balance between writers and investors.
And once this idea is fully refined, we will seek final advice from the master of Blurt's mathematics, whom Jacobgadikian recommended.
Thank you very much for your opinion..^^
that would be great. I just followed you so that I can see the final analysis of your idea about the autho_curator reward scale anytime you post it.