The idea of using the @steemit profile and other means, such as Streemian, as curation guilds is being discussed here, and here, and are already in operation. It’s a good and fair discussion to be having, but the main thing to observe is that it is only occurring because an apparent problem exists. As individual minnows, we learn by experience that up voting generally has no financial incentive. Plus we compare ourselves to whales and might feel that we won’t ever get rewarded enough for curation. Said otherwise, human nature is being somewhat impatient… At worst, this may cause some users to quit Steemit, at best, for others it is inspiring… (Obviously, for anyone thinking or discussing about this, it is the later…)
Assumption 1: Some people therefore want to combine forces and allow a common pool to curate content on their behalf, in order to earn STEEM and SBD by causing guild-curated posts to trend.
Assumption 2: Humans, all of us, want preferential treatment. In this case, when posting their own individual content, but as a member of the guild, by having a horde of hundreds or thousands of virtually automatic upvotes, initiated either by an algorithm or a few trusted, human, lead curators. Anyone not in the guild may still earn its votes by having good content and by being noticed by the guild.
Assumption 3: In this anarchically minded community of individuals, I’m surprised people think that others can accurately reflect their own subtle opinions, and would delegate their voting authority. It must therefore be a moral concession because of the experience and perceptions mentioned above, and assumptions 1 and 2, that would allow people (including myself,) to consider the idea.
Assumption 4: A guild of say 1000 members, 50 of whom are elected curators. When one upvotes a post, the remaining 999 automatically follow, rewarding themselves and the author, and likely starting further trending of the post within the usual voting framework of the platform.
Hypothesis: Because there are now 50 sets of eyes, doing the curating work of 1000, and using the majority of their voting weight, far fewer posts will make either high, or conservative earnings. And there will be a small increase in the number of very high paying posts. Most importantly, and especially if too many of these guilds develop, this means that genuinely good content will go unnoticed and be undervalued. Leading to further pressure to join a guild and give up one’s authority, or worse, for more users to feel alienated, and to quit…
Of course this is not the intention of any guild, and I’m not sure that I see a solution to the problem, but I believe the effects of guild voting on the community, to be worthy of consideration… If there are data to prove the hypothesis wrong, I’m happy to see it and learn from it, or to contemplate alternative hypotheses in the comments.
I’d again like to mention, this is not a complaint as I am inspired by my minnow-hood, but just feel the need to be aware of this potential issue… Any discussion or corrections are very welcome…
