Value of a Creation - What Affects The POB Value of a Post
Value has been talked about a lot lately.
First @calumam made a post showing off in glory his latest NFT creation and making a point about the worth of self-expression.
Then later @vempromundo published a raw proposal to define a collectively agreed max limit of rewards or cost to community for all posts published in POB.
So I came up with this post to express my views about the value of a publication and also about controlling the rewards of publications in proof of brain community.
If I ask you how much POB should someone get for 1 HIVE, you will quickly calculate and tell me. And answers will be same for everyone. Because both POB and HIVE have a quantitative monetary value.
But if I ask how much POB should someone get for a post? You would ask back who is that someone? What kind of post? What is the context? Does it have any images? What is the wording? I want to read it. I want to feel it.
And even if everyone of you get to read it, still we will have a series of very different numbers. Because a piece of content is a piece of art. It can have a different value in varied and multiple frames of references for different people.
Let us understand the factors that make certain POB publications go for higher reward runs, and why we should not cap reward limit or downvote just because a post managed to get higher rewards than usual or more than what we think it is worth.
If I present you a historical copy of Bible published by Gutenberg, and ask you how much it should be worth?
Though most of you will agree that this literary piece must have enormous value. But it will be hard for you to come up a number that can justify and trigger its exchange.
But if I tell you the the last it was sold in 1978 for $2 million. But the recent Sales of other Bibles published around 1500’s is hovering around $8 - $12 millon. It will become easier for you to estimate its worth in quantitative terms.
Similarly the amount of rewards of a publication in a community also depends on the historical record of the rewards on publications with similar qualitative aspects or publications by the same author.
Having a history of positive transaction experiences that is to say consistently delivering a certain level of above average value admired by individual/collective consensus plays a major role in defining higher than usual rewards of a post.
A woman met Piccaso in a restaurant. Handed him a napkin to scribe something and told him that she would pay whatever he thinks it was worth.
Picasso created a random sketch with an autograph and asked a huge sum of money in consideration.
"But it only took you just a few seconds" The lady said.
"No, Madame, it has taken me a lifetime".
So it's just not about the skill. Skill is in abundance. At any point you'll be able to find better art in your local street market than art gallery if you'll scrounge with passion.
But an art and artist are inseparable. Art can not exist without the artist. It has no meaning. The world's best pianist when played anonymously made just $35 that day.
Any piece of creation is the reflection of creator. A reflection of his personality, his objectives, his achievements, his values, his visions, his intentions and aspirations, his thoughts, his contributions and work history and many more such things.
This post is currently valued at 175 in POB rewards.
But if you'll publish a post even with a more trippy NFT and profound words using a new account, will it be be able to match this number?
No, because people have rewarded the post taking into account the creator. And all his other whereabouts I have mentioned before. And not mere the skills and efforts utilized to create this particular publication.
Harrowingly over rewarded posts if they are well articulated and meaningful. And received their maximum rewards by manual curation (directly or indirectly) should be the least of our concern.
The two revelations made before usually make posts land in 200-250 POB reward bracket. Unless being spammed by mindless auto votes to go higher.
Over and except this respectively, what makes some posts run for around 400-500 POB mark is the demand and supply of a certain kind of value that is in the best interests of people who have made this whole POB idea worth any real money. And in turn also best interest of their skin in the game.
If one of the @amr008’s post about governance earned 480 POB doesn’t really mean its over rewarded. It just means that no user with a damn good positive history, reputation and proven efforts of bringing results is posting about developing governance in the community.
So yes, we should cap the rewards if we don't want to encourage people to make proof of brain their home and run contests like word of the week and POBelus and draft detailed polices and everything else.
When the supply of posts providing a particular kind and amount of value will increase. I am sure the rewards will find equilibrium automatically.
So, along with other factors the concept of demand and supply also make the rewards of publications fly above a certain threshold. And I don’t think there is a need to control this unnecessarily.
Since there are so many dynamics into play when we consider the rewarding or over rewarding of a publication. Capping a post to certain rewards would mean -
- neglecting the history of transactions of the author
- neglecting the reputation of the author
- restricting the free markets
I don't think this sacrifice is worth it. It's way too much for such a small change. And it will negatively impact the quality of publications, growth and efficient scalability of the community.
Concerns of @onealfa
I really don't prefer tagging people unnecessarily. I don't prefer to hold their hands and drag them to my content - Hey, see I have written something you should care about - that's not me. I try to respect their time and choices unless I feel its relevant and required.
I addressed you in particular because it's evident that what you end up supporting or not significantly influences the direction of the community's growth. So, I do care about and try to read your viewpoints and opinions consciously.
Also, I never deliberately intend to contradict you. But I don't hold back either from presenting my views to please anyone in particular. I just always honestly try to point what I feel would be beneficial for the community.
For your concerns regarding over-rewarding, though I have already described the reasons before, I also want to add -
The activity of different accounts can not and should not be judged objectively
There are users who choose to split up a topic into multiple posts to mint more POB and then there are users who even combine two topics in a single publication.
There are users who try to engage and put forward their opinion on most matters then there are users who hardly reply to the comments at their own posts with interest.
Provided the kind of attention and number of mentions you get, I don't think anyone would understand this better than you. Whatever anyone does here is so obvious. And I don't think you will disagree about how many posts try to subtly or bluntly include your mention.
But I admire you for understanding that this community accommodates people having different ages, mindsets and motivations. And tagging every smallest of their actions as black or white would be inappropriate. And I express my gratitude to you for showing such kind of humility, and showering them some love whenever they have added some value or were able to connect with you.
But the point I want to make is if I choose to write more articulated and worthy posts but may be less often, engage in the relevant discussions and put forward meaningful points, do not try to spam mentions and have a proven record of commitment to this community.
Then I feel my publication shouldn't be judged in a binary and capped at a certain theoretical or even imaginary limit of rewarding POB. It shouldn't be judged solely based on content, neglecting the overall quality of my activity and contributions. And not just mine but everyone else's.
Also, I appreciate all the responsible work you are doing and I whole heartedly support your views about Autovoting and I believe it is the real root of all evil.
Autovoting - The Root of Evil
If anything that actually needs to be restricted and moderated, its autovoting.
Because it takes into account the user, his activity and his contributions but not the content at hand.
That is to say autovotes reward each and every publication of an author with a certain weight. Which is illogical.
Different pieces of content can not always hold same value for a particular user, even if they are attributed to the same author.
Autovoting disrupts the balance and the author ends up getting more or less rewards than what he must have got in a true and fair free market scenario.
All kinds of suggestions and feedback is welcomed with open arms.