P.S. I've just message commented @andrarchy telling him as a senior poster that this is our single biggest community problem and it needs a solution fast!
P.S. I've just message commented @andrarchy telling him as a senior poster that this is our single biggest community problem and it needs a solution fast!
I suggest this:
Tie the curation system to reputation, so only those above a certain reputation can upvote and downvote, preferably upwards of 30-40 reputation.
That way these shellfish whales that upvote themselves 100% and extract a good percentage for themselves out of the reward pool can be countered effectively and pushed under the threshold for being bad actors, selfish and greedy.
Diminish the power a downvote has and also increase the amount of voting power it uses by 10x.
Create a flagging and counter flagging system like I outlined, invalidating group efforts, gangstalking, piling on of flags, and bad actors from affecting reputation, and affording the community the tools to nuke these bad actors and curtail their accounts to creating content but not voting/curating or flagging, we are many they are few.
Nobody should spend their voting power on downvotes to counter self voting whales, nor should whales have to do that or expect them to, people should have a flagging system that affects visibility and reputation regardless of vests or reputation of the user. Repeated offenses should weigh more and more to discourage them. Without wasting voting power or need to do such, people can upvote content AND flag content that deserves it or counter flag flags and in turn affecting those flaggers reputations, while revealing the content and the authors reputation, worthy content shouldn't be hidden because of vests. Money rules policing is not a viable system of policing, give us the tools to make policing the community a breeze and a positive and empowering act.
Without this balance nobody will have any incentive to downvote these collusive accounts, outside their selfless altruistic ends, but even with nuked reputations these self voting whales/bad actors can still extract rewards through their self voting, arguably even more effective since they are permahidden.
Tie the curation to reputation over 30-40, so that sockpuppet account cannot upvote the main accounts, and tie the flagging system to over 55-60 reputation or possibly higher so that the majority of people that care about building the community can police collusive self voting behavior and those that resort to flagging for griefing can be stopped effectively without draining the users voting power on these fruitless endeavors.
Htooms has said that because of one flag that he received from fulltimegeek it has earned fulltimegeek 6 months of flags from his account, granted his spineless self has caved, probably because of the exposure I brought onto his evil, trollish self, and instead turned all his accounts onto me LOLOL, there is no way to counter such abuse.
In this respect, it clearly is not fair to ask people to upvote my comments and waste their voting power on something as fruitless as this, nor do I count on any such things and if people want to do that I suggest you find something of value and give it your voting power.
Unlike the "muh victim" @seablue who enjoys that support and adoration from her clique, I will much rather laugh at my attempted oppressors and go toe to toe with them by exposing them to the community again and again.
This flagging issue has been exacerbated recently and it won't go away soon enough.
It will continue to be brought into the spot light, even if I don't do it, because this has been a problem that keeps getting pushed farther and farther into the future by the excuse of "growing community, we will tackle it soon, it's not really a problem yet" and it's keeping the community from growing period, and losing trust in the vision and direction of the developers.
Just lower the exponent used in the vote formula that gives whales staggering influence. Change 2 to 1.1. This will accomplish much of the same without being a barrier to new users that have not acquired rep but choose to invest.
Just changing the voting curve won't fix the flagging system or stop sockpuppet account form colliding and extracting wealth from the community pool, nor will it stop them from hiding content and affecting visibility or pay. Why should investors have a say over these things if they don't want to invest in social media aspect, they have a number of other alternatives that allows them to invest in just that one aspect, why should they have a voice over pay and visibility if they don't wish to invest in human interactions..
That won't solve the inability to police accounts with large vests so those bad actors are above the law, and nobody should waste their voting power to negate self voting from whales, instead everyone should have the tools to flag such behavior and in turn curtail the account from engaging in that behavior, preventing any future need for policing that account.
"form colliding and extracting wealth"
Typos aside, it would indeed aide with that issue.
"why should they have a voice over pay and visibility if they don't wish to invest in human interactions.."
What other reasons do they have to invest? I think a big problem is that SP doesn't have much value and you are purposing to make it even less valuable.
How and why would it aid in colluding accounts extracting wealth through self voting/socketpuppet voting?
To be part of a never before kinda thing. Not just that your investors would not be part of the community just be a sockpuppet account, adding NO value to the community yet they should have a say over content? Why? To which you say because otherwise SP will not have value. Bullshit, SP has value over the reputation still in my suggested system, that doesn't change and it also is still tied to reward pool distribution, granted a flatter reward curve is needed.
You want to say that SP won't have value, because the big problem (gtfo, who's big problem, where is this BIG problem discussed and debated??) is SP doesn't have much value, so I am basically removing THE only reason they have to invest, as if the only reason they have to invest is to curate content and not contribute to the community, just to extract a little bit of wealth by bot voting or sockpuppet accounts for curation. Great, I don't want that to stop them from investing, because heaven forbid they go and invest in some other alt coin that doesn't have a social media platform on top of it.
"To be part of a never before kinda thing."
That is the kind of answer that investors laugh at.
You seem to not understand the vital role investors play in the ecosystem. You are missing half the picture in your vision. The reward pool is meaningless if the rewards have no value.
Mind you the ecosystem is broken right now because Steemit Inc has chosen to leave it broken for the time being. Once ads and buying ads with Steem happens there will be actual value.
Tinkering with rep based payout could make sense with the ads in place to keep to value up.
O really, all investors laugh at that?
Great, those people will be kinda short sighted and won't probably stick around anyway.
The big problem is that SP isn't useful?
Once ads and buying ads with steem happens, LOLOLOLOLOL. On the blockchain, LOLOLOL!
Your business acumen is horrible. Investors look for a return on investment. Your answer to them as to why they should invest doesn't address their focus and so would be laughed at by any smart investor.
We already have a horrible ad unit on the blockchain it's called the promoted tab and it just needs to be tweaked to cover all tags.