Voting Model on Steem - Discussion 👣
Recently I have been reading lots of posts about the controversy on automatic votes and manual ones.
What is this?
STEEM Blockchain has something called curation period, a 7 day period on where you can edit your post. After that, it becomes immutable.
If someone upvotes or downvotes your post during this period, then you will gain or lose reputation (how much of people's power is deposited in you). This is not the actual value (in STEEM) of your post, but instead how much weight your post has. On top of that, there is your curation reward, that is based on the weight of all voters, from what is currently available in the pool.
Current Voting Models
You usually manual vote posts, right? To that, we call manual curation (you are validating your importance about that specific post). But there is also auto voting (developed automation services) that, based on computer intelligence, act on your behalf to perform votes (curation) on selected posts. This is something that people in some extent have to delegate someone (a service that is acting through a certain user on STEEM) the power to cast a vote on specific posts, using your own keys.
The above current (most used) methodologies, have since, for some time, gradually creating some friction in the community. WHY?
Well, the method's used and the reasons why value gets distributed from the pool, has actually a direct implication on STEEM value. HOW?
If everyone suddenly starts voting randomly, then community interest will not value content, and voting weight will devalue over time. The same concept is true in the opposite direction. If only the good content is valued, then price increases due to harder curation effort (even having unpowered users with less effect).
On the other hand, automatic curation saves some time to power users that can have positive (or negative, if a careless decision is made) effects on post curation.
What is the solution?
Honestly? Debate!
The best way to solve a community problem is to actually expose the problem openly and ask for public opinion.
My VIEW
I have a particular interest on community-based Blockchains, although I confess that my research became a bit stuck on STEEM. But I know that there is some competition out there. Still, this makes me feel that I should empower STEEM community to participate and join forces, making progress a possible route for STEEM.
I think there are better ways to overcome current philosophy of auto-voting. By somehow denying auto-voting as a standard method of delegating someone's to vote with your keys!
Why? Simple. For me, curation will NEED to always have a manual process (HUMAN BASED). Otherwise, it's not being community curated. Even if it's Watson from IBM or some kind of Hyped-AI that no one has ever heard of.
My Solution
Using a weighted system like value is currently being used to provide curation rewards, we could trigger special permissions on accounts to automatically allow (pre-allowed key permissions) auto-voting mechanisms.
Let's say, subject A posts something and only bellow Z average value is deposited on the first day. Then auto-voting would be disabled. On the other hand, if a BIG user with lots of SP votes in, the average might quickly increase, producing enough proof that it has "value" and can be safely "auto-voted" by AI software.
This also raises the controversy about users using SP to harm STEEM, right? Well, that's why we have "down-voting" right? Downvoting a post, in a Y proportion in comparison with the up-vote weight, should prevent auto-voting.
What about small users that we are so hard trying to promote? Well, this is where I think BIG players should be focusing their attention right NOW! These users must be noticed, right! They provide good value to the community, therefore there must be a way to select and distinguish their value. How? Manual CURATION!
Using manual curation is essential to select. But it can also be elected as a specialized way to trigger AI auto-voting. Just like @minnowbooster or PAL initiative by @aggroed. These have some impact when you are NOT "upvoting yourself". And therefore act as the perfect way to boost manual curation.
More ideas !?
We would love to hear your thoughts...
I was inspired to create this post (which for the first time made use of busy.org, instead of steemit.com) by @ReggaeMuffin!
To be honest, and this pains me to say, there is no solution. At least not until autovoting systems and bots need to identify as such.
Money brings the worst out in humans, and if we have top witnesses, with thousands of followers. who will promote that their automated setup returns them 3x the curation rewards manual curation, then we are... f*cked. Pardon my French.
Worse is that those witnesses at that point don't disclose that they are hurting the health ofthe pool, the pool which is shared by everyone.
All we can do, IMHO, is continue to convince our own circles to apply the right thing, to stay ethical and not to be blinded by the monnies only. Because the latter, sadly enough, is the main issue here. And unlike in experiments like the Prisoner's dilemma, this system does reward short-term greed long-term.
Or maybe, just maybe somebody will start a very well crafted petition which will convince both witnesses and Steem Inc. that the blockchain needs to be updated with a rethought voting mechanism design. That may be slightly too much asked tho.
Addendum: In the spirit of full disclosure, I have two autovoters myself, both on curation projects (ocd and buildawhale). Neither frontrun and both are merely because I do support the curators working on those projects. While my vote may be worth only a penny, it all does add up but I don't get to check the daily updates out every day. Sadly enough.
Identifying (registering) bots was something I have mentioned somewhere too. It would indeed help steemit. Because people could report them, and if not properly set, blocked automatically.
This would all have to be very wisely integrated with the weight mechanism.
I have recently read some of the byzantine based paper from the algorand blockchain, and to be honest it helped me see some problems about the current mechanism of STEEM blockchain.
In any case, I still see some advantages in continuing the current modus operandus. Throwing out everyone's work just because something new is now better, does not always reside as the best evolutionary way of progressing things. Otherwise we would become cancer humans... instead of just humans with only good cells (bad example... but you get the point, I hope).
Thanks for referring to the algorand blockchain. I have long cursed the autovoting - and bot spam too btw - and I agree that we shouldn't ditch everything. Nor is a blockchain in a social experiment such as Steem a lean startup which can pivot overnight.
I have more thoughts about the bots society too, but I still need to both think and reseach those issues deeper. Right now small part of me wishes I was a sociologist. And economist too.
It is an interesting debate to have and since we are dealing with humans I don't think there is a best option but progress and evolution have led us to be what we are.
Anyway, I'm off to research the byzantine based paper now.
Ok firstly I think that weighted votes based on how much steem you have is ridiculous. It creates circle jerks within whale and/or dolphin circles and perpetuates, the rich get richer or first in best-dressed culture. Just imagine in 5 years time how it will be for a minnow to come along and try and get started, it's bad enough now, it will be impossible then.
TBH there are tonnes of big players that either do not participate at all in the platform or fuel this perpetual circle jerk. Please understand there are some amazing people like @aggroed and @sirknight, in fact too many to list, but in order for steem to succeed it absolutely needs to be "for the people". I am currently writing a post on this very matter.
Give me 24hrs and not only will you hear my areas of opportunity you will hear my solutions.
Eager to ear those. That's my view!
I am really after the solution too... not that I feel I am the best to implement it, but because I can produce the necesssary fuel to allow people to drive it, and if allowed by the community, this can become a powerful weapon towards progress.
Thank you for showing motivation in this. It's important for me, but mostly I believe it's also important to our dear community as well.
Much of what you described is why I have been turned off to the STEEM platform. Too many cliques are making this a place like a facebook.
Well, would Facebook be willing to hear your opinion?
I disagree to that... this community has much bigger potential than a 1Million group in Facebook. Not because it's just more people answering or replying to stupid posts... but because when I am writing here... I know EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO listen! If they want...
Facebook is great... but sorry... it's not. I have been on that side... though I have never created an account for some reason.
Anyway, do you have a solution to Facebook or Steemit? I am an INfrastructure person... an engineer... so I can and am able to fix stuff! By design... just need to find the solution.
I'm merely here as a test for the blockain layer myself. I'm migrating more towards GAB once they get their development and ICO together. Too many bots here on steemit making this a ghost town of sorts. And I really can't see the value of STEEM going anywhere near the $2 mark even with the SMT implementation.
Yes, it depends on what you are looking for.
Hi @forykw
Curation / Rewards / Voting? I'm in!
I've spent a few months now reading up on Curation and producing my own statistics, and I have reached the conclusion that manual curation/voting is 2/3/4 times more profitable than automated voting - following a trail / using steemvoter / front-running a bot.
As long as this still stands true, I think/hope we will always have manual curation.
followed, cheers!
Asher
Hi there! Lucky you being in my country and city...
I agree that manual curation is, for the "usual interested", more profitable. But in my view, it goes even way beyond that. Manual curation brings other benefits that are not possible yet with AI or auto decisions:
We are humans... there is a BIG deal about it.
Although I value automation a LOT! And even for voting, I believe it has a role to play. But it can't be free to be used at anyone's discretion, in my view. It has to be auditable and easily controllable by community-based mechanisms.
Enjoy the moment in Portugal... and post lots of photos. It still strikes me that at this moment of my life I could not go there...
Thank you, I'm sure Steemfest will be great!
I like manual curation as I can find new authors - auto-voting is there for your friends/community i think.
i will try to report what I can from the event, have a great weekend!
Man it's a discussion for many hours, but i just want to see more freedom to post there are many whales here that do what they want and in my opinion they abuse constatly with their voting power, so i can see blogs with excellent posts without any upvote and blogs with low quality content with a lot of upvotes
Completely understand. I have seen many like those... and facing the inevitable, I could only do my own weight.
So proposing a new model to the community is necessary.
My view is only one view. But together we could be one BIG and BETTER community!
I do not have Facebook account for a reason.
This is a great issue to discuss, unfortunately it doesn't seem to go anywhere.
Can you make it go, somewhere? I would be willing to deposit trust, if you would...
And why it seems to go nowhere to you?
Good ideas do come from discussion but until everyone on Steemit realises that this is supposed to be a COMMUNITY, then we'll have that argumment linger ad infinitum. To draw in new users Steemit seems to ponder on how much you can make out of it, instead of relying on a whole new community of like-minded people.
Right, I understand the point. But communities are not all driven by equally or equivalent people right? So it is expected that only a small percentage take care about businesses like these.
Anyway, the point is, do we still care? and, do we want to do anything about it, or you are all starting from scratch with someone else?
From my end, I see lots of people just switching planes... and don't get me wrong, I understand it's much easier, but then don't expect things to evolve on the other side as well, just because you are jumping on a better technology.
Things on the blockchain should assume progress and change.... otherwise they are dead at birth. Steem has been adapting. So, I would say, in the right direction. But depending on the community size that actually drives the code development, it can take longer or not.
Thanks for sharing your view.
Happy to share my thoughts. I agree with what you say and I am a diehard on the platform, after putting all the effort I have done into Steemit, because I like the ideas behind it (or the intended ones!) then I will stick with it. I plan to be on it a long time, or as long as I am able. I have a few penpals who see my posts and share things with me, I hope that grows too. Happy Steeming!