Obligatory HF19 notice, and the near future of FOSSbot Voter
Pretty, pretty ... pretty cool 😎
😆
I've seen my $0.10 100% power up vote go up to $3.16, very interesting. I guess it's time to start using the power slider! In fact I've never used it before.
This raises an important missing feature of the Steem FOSSbot Voter - power adjustment. This is being tracked as issue #7, Add voting power conservation and is going to be added soon.
Why hasn't it been added already? The last release v0.2.8 was about getting the house in order for the last few bugs, getting rid of the most critical and the ones which caused show stopping problems. The next release v0.2.9 will be the last basic improvements
and bug fixes.
Thanks to @ubgg (who does not have a related Steemit account, unless I'm wrong?) we discussed and designed a system of setting voting power in an intelligent way.
Simple explanation
You can allow you voting power to move between two settings, a maximum and a minimum, and set how it should move between the two to conserve your voting power.
Note that this also solved the simpler case of just setting the voting power constant if the max = min 😉
The technical explanation
On the y-axis we have Power on vote, which is the power to be used when casting a vote. Currently for the bot this is always 100%. On the x-axis we have the users current Voting power, as the Steem blockchain reports it. The blue line shows what the actual voting power will be.
So we need four variables to allow for a dynamic setting of voting power. This is the one you suggest plus three other which are:
- Minimum voting power (as you suggested), in the graph at 70%, the minimum the blue line can be.
- Maximum voting power, in the graph at 100%, the maximum the blue line can be.
- Voting power curbing threshold, in the graph at 80%, shown by the yellow-orange line
- Voting power curbing limit, in the graph at 50%, shown by the red line
While voting power is above the voting power curbing threshold, voting power on votes will remain at maximum voting power.
When voting power hits the voting power curbing threshold, voting power reduces with linear interpolation (i.e. a straight line) until voting power hits the voting power curbing limit.
If the voting power goes below this limit, voting can then stop.
Call for feedback!
If you're a user of Voter bot, or familiar with it, I'd be interested in your comments on this plan. I will implement it very soon so please add your comments.
I have to confess my bemusment and surprise at the apparent success of HF19 in achieving a substantial improvement in parity for curators and authors. While this will require continued attention to ensure that it's not just a temporary flux, it appears to be a far greater improvement than I expected.
The concentration of author rewards in a handful of accounts is the most important datum to watch, as author rewards remains the vast majority of rewards, and that concentration the most egregious example of unfairness. If that distribution does indeed change by orders of magnitude, then I will have to concede the problem is much improved, as it presently appears to be.
Despite my continuing dislike of having to manipulate the financial impact of my votes, I am going to have to devote some of the attention I pay to issues to learning how to moderate the impact of my votes. I'd prefer some simpler system, so I can focus on the issues I want to impact, but the financial impact of my vote is simply too big to ignore, and so the gamification aspect is something I'm going to have to learn about.
I'm encouraged that HF19 has apparently had a beneficial impact larger than I expected, and hope to see that impact reflected in far greater diversity of accounts receiving substantial author rewards. I still don't like having to play games with votes, but acknowledge that it now appears necessary to study, in order to responsibly vote to support particular authors and topics I feel are important.
The system as it is is designed to actually reduce cognitive load. Part of the why that it is intended to do this is by removing the cost to you. Votes are not micropayments. See this quote of Clay Shirky from the whitepaper:
Perhaps this is not your experience however, you seem to be experiencing the micropayments dilemma. You are thinking of how to best vote effectively. You should really just be voting freely. They are free.
I have been voting freely, but have noticed (because I do it a lot) that sometimes my vote does produce a reward, but sometimes it does not. I don't want my vote to be without value to the people whose posts or comments I vote on, so the fact that my vote has variable value is something I have to understand.
If each vote simply had a value, then I could simply decide to vote for things I liked, or not vote for things I don't. EZ PZ. This is not the case.
I'd be interested in reading an exploration of this particular issue. Maybe other people are having it like you.
From my perspective I don't worry about the exact amount that my vote contributes. For me it's a given that it is taken into account (the main thing) and that the value is see is not necessarily reflective of the actual payout.
A simple vote value isn't Steemit. It's a little complex by design.
"It's a little complex by design." LOL you're sure right about that!
As I have been devouring Steemit's offerings today I have been watching my votes decrease in value. It was more than twice as much when I started today. This is probably what I have been seeing before, but since my vote was only worth ~$.02 max, it soon became too little to show.
How are you feeling about HF19? I'm surprised, and so far happily. Many people are far more pleased with their rewards, and seem to be intent on posting more and better content. I love it when I predict doom, and I'm wrong, and everything gets better =p
Your voting power decreases the more you vote. This is called vote rate limiting. It recovers gradually over time according to this:
Again from the whitepaper:
There's definitely a renewed spirit on the platform since yesterday. Exciting times!
It has to be a mistake. I was thinking it would increase 4x not 40x which seems to be the rough number at the moment!
No mistake! We on the lower side are now given a slice of the top side.
I'm really happy about this - for the minnows! 😊
It has to be, for starters the voting power is non linear!
Isn't the use of bots against Steemit rules? How can Steemians reward quality if there is no human element? This makes me sad.
Not at all, they are tacitly encouraged. You might be interested in my discussion, Are bots bad for Steemit?
Thank you for the link. I have joined in the discussion belatedly.
this raise had made seriously crazy money for users
for me , took me suddenly from $50 to $400 in a second lol
but do you think it will still high all the time or will be adjusted in the next update?
I don't think it will be adjusted in the next update. The reward pool has not changed in size, i.e. there is not more money available now. The only change is that users votes allocate this amount differently.
What is important to remember is that the total number of votes changes the payouts, because they are all taken into account for the same reward pool. This also means that more users joining the platform could potentially, over time, cause lowering of what you can allocate, assuming you do not gain more Steem Power.
So now will I get paid that increase in my profits?
Could you rephrase that?
ok I will try to clarify
My earnings was almost $55 but after the update it became almost $400
will I get paid $55 or $400??
It may be neither. Your estimated earnings (which is what you see before actual payment) can go up and down.
It will probably stay at around $400 or higher, but I'm not sure about that, we have to wait and see what happens.
But please bear in mind that before you actually get paid nothing is sure yet!
ok thanks for explaining