Curves and Curation... An Opinion
Another round of discussing adding the curve back into the rewards allocations and increasing the percentage of curation rewards.
Here is my Opinion, there are pros and cons with any changes and I acknowledge how it will play out is mostly speculation.
There is talk of changing the economic structure of Steem's blockchain again.
Let's look at putting the curve back into the reward pool, currently, it is linear.
What that means is as votes stack each vote becomes a bit more valuable. The idea is that the more people agree that it is a good post the more earnings it receives.
If you want to know how that plays out, just take the posts that have the most rewards, and take rewards from all of the rest of the posts and add it to those posts. It basically makes the reward pool heavier on the top. (See Trending Page)
My account might even be big enough now to benefit from this, but I can't see how it is going to give anyone incentives to vote for someone else. Nor do I think it is going to change engagement or distribution, in fact I think it would hurt. It will help passive investors.
Now add the other "idea" I've been reading about. Increase Curation Rewards, by giving a larger percentage of the stake to voters instead of posters. It sounds good for engagement on the surface, but in reality, many of the votes are cast by SteemVoter and various automated voters. It would be easy just set up your autovoter and watch your passive investment grow by voting for the highest rewarded Authors.
Add those two things together and you have HUGE incentives to vote for those who you think are going to receive the most votes, set up on an Autovoter and walk away and earn. In my opinion, our two biggest issues are engagement and distribution and I fail to see how either of these fixes would help to address those issues. In combination, I think they could make the problem much worse,
I have no idea how serious this push is and what the odds are they can talk SteemIt Inc into coding the changes that are being called for. I am going on record to say, I do not want to see us change directions right now before we get communities and SMTs, and I do not support these changes at this time and I think they mainly benefit the largest accounts who receive the most votes. This concerns me regarding User-Retention and Engagement.
We can keep tweaking the math on the blockchain, but the values of the largest stakeholders are already built into the economy and you do not build an active user base by ignoring them. If you want more users to be rewarded, simply vote for more users.
I am curiously watching how this will play out. If you were not here when we had a "curve" in the reward pool, make sure you understand there is already history in place on how well that worked out for the average end-user. I'm watching some interesting discussions and as always I am willing to listen to the other side, but for now, I do not support these changes together.
I think I would support an increase in curation, but in order to make that happen, you have to remove that money from the reward pool which makes it smaller. On the other hand, it would pay more to read and vote for posts. I can see pros and cons from this and although it would get gamed a bit there would be many who may not be authors who could gain from these changes.
Just an opinion and whichever way it all works out it will be interesting to watch.
@whatsup,
I like that curve type voting system! Hope it might be a good solution to deduct huge boosts via Bot programs!
Cheers~
haha, those who like the curve, were either getting whale support when we had it or they weren't here yet.
It seems to me that either way, those at the top are going to benefit. Those bigger votes will be easier to capitalize on.
However, it does drive me a little crazy to see posts with 100 votes worth all of $2.00. I know it's incentive to grow accounts, but to have one person's vote be worth more than hundreds of others does bother me a bit.
I can't say I have a solution, but in my opinion, that isn't it.
I hear you... POS ... Proof of stake. Is always going to lean towards those who are basically financing it.
One idea to consider is... Everyone controls exactly the percentage of stake that they own... Each day the reward pool is created.. (It's new steem) that steem devalues the steem of those who are already holding steem. So, some call it a community rewards pool, but it is actually a Investor Funded Reward pool.
Anyway, while I acknowledge is doesn't help with Quality.. It does seem fair.
however it is DPOS actually: Delegated POS :)
and the point which I feel many forget or prefer to ignore:
that Delegation is Mutual
so, the solution, @hickorymack, is in getting back to that fundamental principle of Delegation. fortunately many members of community already realized and started doing it on their own. hopefully rather sooner than later a sufficient "critical mass" (or 100th monkey) would be achieved to trigger the chain reaction of that solution and tip the whole balance! :)
I get that, I do. I think I'm coming more from an emotional viewpoint, I guess, thinking of how it must feel to have so little impact.
It must seem impossible to get curation rewards at all for new users with upvotes of 0.
It bothers me sometimes too. I can argue both sides of it. :) However, it is how the blockchain is designed.
@BERNIESANDERS AND @UBG ARE CHILD SEX PREDATORS! @Pfunk is very closely involved in the child sex ring! @UBG was caught posting naked pictures of children on Steemit chat when he was drunk. He also registered @Child and @Children accounts and claims to "love children." Then he posts comments on blogs of mothers breast feeding their babies. All while he wears his Bugs bunny costume and masturbates. This child porn posting incident was before he ripped off Steemit Inc for about 180,000 Steem by registering over 3,000 accounts .. then he sold the account names to Steemit Inc! He has them hidden in many accounts such as @Warren.Buffett. Yes, Ned has been knowingly doing business with crypto thieves and pedophiles like @Fyrstikken, @UBG and @BernieSanders! Did you know Fyrstikken stole every penny of crypto that is currently under his control through a few organized robberies against groups like @Adsactly? What a mess Steemit is. Most of the top 19 witnesses belong in prison for tax fraud!
Here you can see @UBG showing his butt to the whole internet, mainly he wants children to see him naked.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@ubg/stickers-anyone-everyone
Here is his real name and parents address in case you would like to inform them of their son's theft and child predatory behavior.
Tanel Sillaots
Meistri 15
76506 Saue
Estonia
CAUTION! WHATSUP IS AN ASSOCIATE OF CRYPTOCURRENCY ROBBER @FYRSTIKKEN WHO HAS STOLEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ADSACTLY.
I came by to see who gave me a nice vote on my recent freewrite post, and thank you very much. I really appreciate that.
And reading this post makes me wish the "powers that be" here would be working on something other than playing with the voting structure. Right now, with the latest new fork, we have a huge problem with noobs. This new rc scheme means anyone with a tiny amount of sp is dead in the water once they make one post and five comments. God forbid they try to edit a post.
These new people try to get going here, but their rc runs down to zero almost immediately and then they need to wait a week to restore.
Currently I am watching tiny minnows/redfish delegate sp to tinier redfish so that they can even post here. I'm talking about people with 300 sp delegating 100 of it to new people. WTH.
I think this needs to be fixed before figuring out how to get the votes changed around. I do not know anyone to tell this information to, so I just tell anyone big I think might hear me. You win the prize today, and thank you again for your vote.
I believe is not the time to implement this feature yet. The focus need to be on SMT and community.
Posted using Partiko Android
This was the first thing came into my mind when the HF20 bro told me that I can comment x times/day.
source beempy curation tool
I wasn't here when it curved, I don't get it at all when people say n*1.2, n^2 bla bla, my math sucks but 12420% 👍 😀
forgot to mention that, even I didn't get the math I can feel it's about to make investors(!) richer. It's hard to encourage manual curating when everyone can easily analyze rewards and build an automation tool for it. not everyone per se :|
Damn I thought my math suck, my thinking and writing abilities are worse. Increasing curation rewards somehow backfire as many change happened before.
As we may know, many respectful(!) business owners already claimed 1k+ accounts. When they see the potential on curation ROI, it may take away the one of the chances of a plankton account to grow. They can just invade all the curation window with their fancy tools, while one poor plankton looking for a 0.01 curation.
e.g. fulltime's army. It might be in good use atm, didn't check for a long time but all those entrepreneurs(!) we have in steem smells the opportunity.
Now I'm not giving you shit here because you are an interesting geek - but honestly, the biggest thing stopping user retention on Steemit is geeks going on about changing the fucking code all the time... What we need is more PORN:
I never thought that right after being made a minnow with help from this community I would say this but it is my truth... This community is getting harder by the day and for someone who ain't stable in real life, it will be very tricky to spend more time here.
The need to vote for many of us is there but I rarely see that happening. There a people getting good rewards per post and thus posting more to gather them which I have no problem with but there also those of us who can't even make 1$ per post.
It's draining to be the one making a dollar per post. Anyway, thank you for sharing this.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah, I was there once... I remember it well! We had a curve when my account was at the point yours is now... It was rough until the Whale Experiment added a bit of relief.
It's depressing, right? Because I really want to stay and interact... I really want to. But if I do, I risk being unable to take care of mine which I can't.
Let's hope better will come. Thank you for your support and understanding. Many will confess to it's rarity in this community.
Posted using Partiko Android
I do like the curation thought if implemented correctly. I enjoy my time in the ecosystem engaging with many great content creators so it would just be a great use of my time doing what I already like to do so it works. However, I think that many are losing focus on thinking about how to change the distribution instead of focusing on what will bring value to the system and make the reward pool bigger. That way we all get more!
yeah, I lean towards thinking that could be a good thing. I'm always saying we need more engagement and curation. If we pay more for it, maybe we will get it!
Curation without the curve I think would be a good starting point.
Didn't look at it from that angle previously. Guess we should just hold on till SMTs are launched
I'm interested in the discussion... But my thought is that if we want to keep new users we have to engage them.
The problem with the current design of the blockchain is that it can be gamed with self-voting. SP holders can allocate earnings for themselves both from the curation and from the author pools.
In my opinion the incentives would be better aligned if we could not take from both pools at the same time.
If the rewards pool could be split 50/50 between authors and curators and we could somehow prevent people from earning curation and author rewards with self-voting I think we could have a better setup.
To avoid self-voting via alternate accounts we could have some sort of proof of the uniqueness of an account. Of course there would still be the possibility of off-chain agreements but at least it would not be built into the system.
Anyhow, there is no perfect system and humans will always find a way to gain the upper hand, the only thing we can aspire to is to minimize any form of abuse.
If we change curation and the curve, large stakeholder will get the increased curation rewards on their own votes. So that doesn't change a bit, it just gets allocated from different pools.
The key to changing the curation rewards to 50% would be to make it impossible to get both curation and author rewards on the same vote. That way you would need to choose how to get rewards, either posting or voting. In this scenario the easiest way to for SP holders to get rewards would be to vote on other peoples post (making a post involves more work than voting).
Unfortunately there would be several ways to circumvent that limitation, off the top of my head:
In a perfect world we wouldn't have those workarounds and the incentives of authors and SP holders would be aligned e.g curators would only get rewards if authors did.