A call to wing for Curangel

What I have loved about #newsteem has been the reintroduction of randomization in the reward process where due to the increase in active curation, there is more uncertainty in what will get voted, what will not and - what will get downvoted.

This randomization has been reintroduced because of the latter, where downvotes have changed the models of maximization away from massive bidbot buys and therefore, a lot of stake went unused. This then translated into people moving their delegations toward 50/50 curation instead.

Because of this return to curation and more manual voting, curation initiatives have finally returned to the Steem waters to reintroduce the "lottery effect" on Steem, where authors can be surprised by winning rewards without having to do anything else other than produce good content. Once upon a Steem time, these community projects kept people engaged and as they offered a thrill of not only a vote, but recognition.

One of the newest and most interesting curation projects is @Curangel - delivered by respected witness, @pharesim. Some of you might recognize those wings as a major sponsor of SteemFests. You can see their announcement post here and how they have been performing officially here as of a few days ago.

But for the last 7 days, we have this:

What that means is that in the last seven days @curangel has unearthed and voted 822 times and to 679 unique accounts by using their manual curators who search and suggest content for the @curangel account to vote upon with its almost half a million stake.

So?

Well, there is more to curation than just directing Steem toward content and there is more to @Curangel than this too as what is starting to happen more and more is like @theycallmedan has said, curation becomes the best way to earn for investors and a paid service, and this has larger implications for the entire ecosystem.

While at @curangel the author gets some much deserved Steem for their work (50%), the curator also earns a piece of the curation return (10%) and those who delegate get the rest (40%). 40% for delegation instead of the 50%? Yes, because through the curation as a service, there is more to it than maximization.

Being able to unearth and reward talent adds value to the entire ecosystem and rewarding people who search for this content to reward and bring it into the spotlight has value also as it develops and supports sets of active eyes who are looking out for Steem, in the positive and negative. Yes, @curangel has a downvoting component too and curators can suggest content that they come across that deserves to have some rewards removed.

What Steem is missing in regards to unearthing content are the algorithms that the centralized platforms use to great effect, but are authoritarian by nature. Steem's algorithm is the active community who keeps an eye on on the content so that what is deserving gets rewarded, and what is not doesn't. This is intensive manual work, but it means that rather than telling people what is good, the community actually decides what it wants to see.

It is also because of this that having many curation initiatives with stake behind them is ideal because it decentralizes the search process so not only can more ground be covered, but there can be a wider range of diversity as well as greater community consensus on what holds value. What I am hoping is and seeing already is that some content has had stacked votes on them, not by bidbots, by manual curation teams.

What this does is highlight what is highly regarded by the curators and generally it is when they all chance upon a brilliant piece and, the author wins the curation initiative lottery. In time, this is going to be a massive attractor of users and will encourage authors to win the lottery from time to time also by creating fantastic content. It is this attention to great content that will bring ever more content creators and as they arrive, the masses will come to consume the content delivered.

As an investor and Steem owner this is what is needed to increase awareness and therefore value of the ecosystem, and that is why people should consider delegating some of their stake to curation initiatives. Especially at this stage of the platform, having manual curators who literally spend hours each day searching through the ecosystem looking for content should be considered a highly regarded service.

Personally, I have increased my delegation to a dolphin-sized amount of Steem to @curangel because I have watched how not only have they distributed much appreciated votes to authors, they have engaged their curators and connected them more deeply to Steem, something that also has to happen. My brother @galenkp is one of the curators and I do not think I have seen him as engaged on the platform in his 2+ years, and if anyone knows him, he has always been engaged.

Having this kind of energy behind a curation team means that when it comes to distribution, they are actively looking out for all aspects of the platform, and all user groups - author, consumer, developer and investor. @curangel and other initiatives are business models that provide a service to bring all four into alignment and the more support they get, the faster the ecosystem develops and the greater the value grows.

Your stake is your own, but I urge those who have even a little extra to seek out ways to maximize the value it brings to the ecosystem by delegating some to projects like @curangel where the return on the investment through the development of the ecosystem is much higher than the cost of the service. For the larger and older accounts out there, this being a @pharesim project should be enough in itself to look further and consider giving it some backing.

Your stake, your platform.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]