Why Manual Curation Does Not Work - Prevents Growth -Autocuration

Welcome back to the channel. I hope you're having a great day. So today I want to talk about why manual curation doesn't work. So in understanding the manual curation and understanding platforms on blockchains, specifically decentralized social media, which deals oftentimes with, uh, um, the transfer of value, right? Where there'd be some type of content or post, and, uh, usually it might be some type of upvote system. And the, the reason I want to broaden it is because I, I think especially if you're using platforms like, um, Steam or Hive, you might tend to think that those are the only type of upvote systems and models that are out there, but there are, there are other ones besides proof of brain, but they all have the same type of issue, and that is what is the incentive to give over value to someone else, right? And some of them use a type of a tip system, right? But oftentimes the value that they can get from uh, engaging in these type systems is very minuscule. And, uh, the less incentivized they are to do this, the less that, uh, the value transition is going to happen across the board, right? So what has happened on many of these platforms, whether it be platforms like Hive or Steam, or whether it be platforms that use DPoS systems, uh, delegated proof systems. There's oftentimes what you're gonna have is you're gonna have like this one will, and this one will is gonna— if you're fortunate, he has the influence and the control of how much value to give over to you. And generally these, these— and that's another issue, and this is just a general problem with cryptocurrency, that is that the levels of distribution, uh, aren't that good. So oftentimes the people who have the most influence over the networks, even if you're looking at something like Bitcoin, it is estimated that 1% of the Bitcoin network owns 87% of the entire network. So right there, most cryptocurrency models follow a very similar course. And the problem is now you have very few people that are going to have that level of influence over the network to where it's, you know, very healthy, uh, quite the healthy network, right? Um, so one, uh, problem has always been when doing a manual curation, uh, to encourage it And they've attempted to make certain changes to try to get people to want to engage more in manual curation. They've done this by, generally during the hard forks, they change out the code and they're using this code to try to iron out some of those problems, right? And every year or several times a year, they come back with these hard forks and they try to figure out ways to make things work more efficiently for, for users. So there are several problems that don't get addressed that we want to look at today. So amongst some of the issues, some of the main problems are time. There are time constraints. So Let's say that even if you are able to attract people who have the influence or the networks that can curate your content, that can curate your polls, even if you're able to attract them, they are constrained by time. And the average amount of time given to per social media interaction per platform is about 5 minutes. Right, so what you're saying then is you're generally gonna have a whale who has 5 minutes to curate, to go around and upvote your content, to read your content. Some of these, some of this content, excuse me, some of the better of the content is going to be about something like 5, 10 minutes, 17 minutes long. So they're gonna be quite limited. They're gonna be quite limited and what they can do. One issue to try to correct it that hasn't— well, it was debatable, but something many didn't like, it were the bots, right? And of course the bots are where instead of waiting for you to naturally curate them, they pay people to curate them. They pay these large whales to curate them and And as you can see right off the bat, that's presenting a big issue because, uh, now they aren't really curating the content at all, right? What they're doing is just paying for the upvotes, right? Which is kind of self-defeating in itself. So that doesn't quite work either, although it it can create a little bit more distribution. But a lot of times, as you can see, there's a lot of negativity in, you know, in relation to bots, to those type of bots, to paid bots, right? If the bots aren't paid for, that might be a little different story. But the fact that they are is a huge issue, right? So What— so what can be done? Like, um, is it always going to just end up being what most people who are being attracted to these type chains— is it always going to just end up with them hoping that a whale comes along in a quite the imbalanced system and upvotes them? And most of the people uh, uh, that doesn't happen for— so their user experience is probably not going to be the best. Um, interesting enough, this was also a very big problem caught early on by the founders. Uh, people like Dan Larimer, people like Ned Scott, they were seeing that it was just very much this imbalance and the curation system and the wealth distribution system that has lasted since the beginning of these projects. And although the community has picked it up after the founders have exited the building, and the reasons that they exited the building were mostly from their own words, it would seem that You know, not only did they want to do other projects, but they have pointed out several flaws in their designs. And, and that's something that can naturally happen when you create a project, especially if you create it in a very short time frame. You can miss a lot of stuff and a lot of things. So the good things about these type systems that shine— yes, they got pushed to the forefront and and they get celebrated quite a bit. But the, the, the, the very negative flaws that I believe have held these projects back haven't been addressed, and they should be addressed. Because if they're addressed, I think you— we could see a very prosperous system, a lot more value, a lot better distribution. And that's going to, uh, that would prove to be great and better for users users and in the end user experience down the road. And I think ultimately that's what you want, right? You know, in other words, if you're on these systems, you don't want to be a 300-place coin. You don't want to be a coin that's dropping, you know, 30, 40, 50% of its value every week. Excuse me. You want to be a project that grows and that makes a big difference and that is, uh, transferring value to people. And in order to do that, you have to address big issues like manual curation that do not work. So what can be done if manual curation doesn't work? What are some things that do work? All right, so we're here on the BitcoinMYK.com system. It is tokenized on blockchains like Steem, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, Waves, soon-to-come Ethereum. And so, um, the thing about this type of system, it does have an upvote system, right, like many of these projects have in this type of social media. But the difference here is whereas you can manually curate there's also a curation system, an algorithm that is able to extrapolate a certain amount of value you bring to the platform and award you cryptocurrency based on that, depending on what you do, right? So if you're uploading photos, there's going to be value to that. If you're, uh, liking somebody's posts, if you're writing a certain post that's getting a certain amount of attention, whatever you're doing, this system is going to latch on to you and it's going to award you X amount of the cryptocurrency automatically. So what this allows for, this allows for the manual curators to be able to to pick up on where they're falling short on the curation or where it's just physically impossible for them to do it because the other part is, it's not that people who manually curate don't want to curate as many people as possible. Maybe they wanna curate everybody if it was physically possible, but it is not. And so this helps them to pick up the slack of where, that problem lies. Another thing we found out too, and this is something that is very important that I think gets missed psychologically, is that in these type of projects, whereas oftentimes there's a limit to the amount of vote value you can give out, you know, to not, you know, balance the network, to, you know, cause people to sell the cryptocurrency and the value goes to zero, what I think people have to understand is that there is a difference between just the physical monetary value one receives on posts and the appreciation and the other forms of value that get delivered to them for being recognized and doing the posts. And again, the recognition and being able to even find these posts are in some cases not going to be possible But in those cases when that happens, if we have the algorithm that already knows how to give a certain amount of value for a certain level of participation or a certain type of participation, as we'll show you here in a second, then in those cases, then that end user is going to have a better user experience and it's going to affect them in a way where he's going to want to continue to participate more. And that's going to be very important for growth and keeping people, um, uh, using the, uh, using the platform, right? So, uh, let's go over here and give you an example of what we're talking about here. I'm gonna click on one of the— you— all right, so taking a look at one of our users to understand how the curation process works. As you got to see, there is the manual side of it, so you still can manually curate. That's that's not off the table. But what's happening is if one person is able to determine the value of all the content across the network, then you can see that being a problem for so many reasons. So with this, you're— everybody is able to curate manually, but the system is able to extrapolate, look at what people are doing, and give a cryptocurrency value to it through the algorithm, right? And it distinguishes from the task that is completed. That is the big difference in, uh, you know, just getting an upvote to a post. Whereas on many of the DPOS systems, when you get an upvote to a post, it has to just be for that particular post, and it's very general to that post. It's not specifically determined. So for example, to, to help you understand, this person becomes a member, one of our latest members here, They became a member and the system said, okay, we're gonna award them 10 of the tokens, right? Then after that, they, they, they logged in every day. They logged in, they got one token, right? Then they visited a site, they got another token, and then they view the page, they got another token. Now what the system is saying is saying those particular things they are doing in this particular model and design, is the system is going to automatically give you that value for doing that. Right now, depending on the task, it's going to change, right? It could be anything. Now, uploading a photograph, I believe it might be 10 tokens. If you're doing a refer— referring a person, I think it's 10 tokens on everybody you refer to the system. But you get the basic idea. This system is able to not only help with growth but we believe it's going to be able to bring in, uh, and hold and keep new users. Whereas I believe what's happening on many of these, um, these type systems we have today, people come in, they don't perform very well the first few weeks, they don't like it, they leave. Now, some in the community think that's a good thing. They think we're trimming the fat. However, growth is the ultimate goal most of the time. Because growth is going to give the most value, it's going to give you the most while, it's going to give you the most recognition, and it's going to give you the most sustainability. And so that's why growth is so important. But I think we erroneously miss that. People who perform well on the system, they ignore that, um, and because of that, um, it doesn't grow like it should, right? People leave out as soon as they come in. This, we believe, is the solution to fix that. Ultimately, people are going to pick the best systems for them, and we have to ask ourselves, we're looking at masses of people in a populace, what's going to be the system that they're probably likely going to choose? They're going to choose the one that's valuable to them, not necessarily one with the most money that's going to most money. I think that's a, a big problem that, um, the Steam and Hive blockchains have made. They think it's all about just giving the most money. But people use Facebook every day and they use Instagram every day and they're not paying for it. Obviously there's another value system at work there. What's going to make people stay and use your platform is the one that gives them more community value, more appreciative value, more that value them more as people and human beings. And ultimately those systems are more likely gonna win out. They have most of the time because people like to work in their own best interest, although they sometimes erroneously do not. Ultimately, the goal is to work in your own best interest. So that's what we want to tell you about manual curation not working. Try this type of curation out. It is very addictive. I can promise you that it is very addictive to users. We believe we haven't really put anything into marketing in this. We would prefer this to be a community marketing effort, and we would prefer that the value for marketing goes to the community because it's going to be that much better for distribution than paying a marketing agency, right? In other words, paying you guys instead of a marketing agency is going to further distribute the value of the project. It's going to make a lot more sense. So we ask you to definitely try that, see if you like it. We think you're going to be addicted to it as we are, and we think you're going to walk away and say, okay, well, this makes a lot more sense. We can manually curate, and then there is this algo that does the rest, picks up the slack as it were. But that's all I want to say in this video. Don't forget to join BitcoinNYK.com. Try it out today, see if it is the solution we've been looking for. That's all I want to say, and until next time, as always, take care of yourselves. And each other.