Suggestions To Make Curation More Rewarding - Part 2 - Curation Reward Inverse To Reputation, Community Silent Blacklist, Voting Power Refunds
Without further ado, here is part two of my curation-brainstorm session.
Another arbitrary rule, unless a modifying formula is added. In addition to (or instead of) target reputation, other factors such as target posts-per-day, number of followers, average payout per post (high or low), or any number of other options could be used.
The logic is to encourage the curation of authors who need it (lower reputation) and somehow disincentivize "curating" users who happen to also have almost everyone on the platform following them already (higher reputation) without directly punishing the author rewards of those higher reputation authors.
Allow the community to decide that an author is no longer obscure enough to require any curation, and nullify (redistribute to the reward pool) their curation reward payouts with no requirement of flagging / voting power use. If done invisibly (like a secret ballot), this also avoids a lot of drama and undesirable optics for Steemit in general (we do want Steemit to, at least, appear welcoming.)
Create an option that works similar to the negative voting referenced by @teamsteem (in Jerry's #1 Author post) posted in the past by @dan. Allow people to vote against a users curation rewards in a way not dissimilar from the witness vote interface.
If 20% of stake choose to nullify an author's curation rewards, remove that directly from the rewards when paid out (and show it in the rewards mouse-over: "%curation rewards nullified by community curation list".) The amount of stake blacklisting does not need to be proportionate with the curation nullified, as perhaps more or less than 1:1 would be necessary.
This option has the potential negative of further concentrating power, and if "vote-trading whales" are a serious problem, will do little if anything to combat the issue unless competing cartel rings choose to act against their own interests and battle each other via blacklisting rather than focus on gaming the system quietly in different niches.
Allow users who curate a post or comment and reach a certain (high) threshold of expected payout from curation to have their voting power from that vote instantly refunded. This would allow the curator to immediately cast another vote elsewhere.
The logic here would be to reward those who do the best voting and empower them to do more of it to benefit the community as a whole.
This option would still require a change to the curation formula, as if implemented currently would just aggravate the bandwagon voting issue.
A system like this could be potentially abused.
I have one more idea I like better than all of these...but I want to talk about it more, so I'll save it for a part 3!
Thanks for reading, and please let us know your thoughts in the comments!
Sources: KeepCalmAndPosters.com, Google, @dan, @teamsteem, @jerrybanfield, @dantheman, wethepeopletshirts.us, harvardlunchclub.com
Copyright: Seinfeld, Reader's Digest, Jersey Shore
I think you're onto something.
Safe to say that any system that can be exploited will be exploited. Also a simple system is also more likely to help rank and file steem members rather than the hard core who might be the only ones to figure it out.
Still think the simplest would be to make the rewards inversely proportional to reputation and followers. At rep 25 or under curation could be worth 50% and at rep 70 or over it could be worth 0%. Curating a low rep posted is a high risk proposition for any curator not doing charity work. It needs to be rewarded better.
That's an interesting idea. At 70 or above, most of the votes that affect payout tend to happen right at or right before the 30 min threshold anyway, which would still lock in significant rewards for established authors. I'd still cap the curation at above 0%, but that's just me. I don't really have a good reason for that.
You could make it simple. Curation reward = (75 - Reputation)%
I really don't think anyone with a reputation of 75 is going to need curation. I'm sure many would be very happy to get 100% of the post value. From what I can see some of the higher rep stuff is getting upvoted from the 15 minute mark. Everyone is just trying to jump in front of each other and I don't think a lot of value is added in the process.
That's what I was thinking as well.
"don't think anyone with a reputation of 75 is going to need curation."
Not now, anyway. However, in the future if Steemit continues to add new users, it's possible that we'll see "reputation inflation". Thanks for the great discussion thread!
Very good point. When I first looked into the reputation formula I was expecting some kind of time decay, but it's not there. A time decay feature would put reputation into an equilibrium that effectively ensures a ceiling.
Then the proposed curation formula would work long term :p
I think simply adding a separate curation reputation would make it much simpler to manage via decoupling the two variables.
The only real restrictions on standard reputation are:
I'm not sure that is true. My understanding is that rep can only be lost because of higher rep downvotes, but when it comes to upvotes there is no restriction. Thus there is technically no ceiling and nothing will ever reign in the highest reputation player(s) no matter how badly they behave. Some of the code is in this post :-
https://steemit.com/steemit/@arcange/6sbsvp-what-is-steemit-reputation-and-how-does-it-work
Ah, thank you for the clarification. It had been some times since I looked into those mechanics.
This does explain how I am slowly creeping up the 60's list, however.
The first and second ideas are excellent. Making curation rewards inversely proportional to rep and/or other factors would significantly tilt the scales toward new users and provide incentive to people to join. There's an argument that people could game the system with spam or "low-quality" content, but that's happening now anyway.
Your second idea is one that I really like, especially if it's done anonymously. Flag wars are no good for anyone, and they're especially harmful to the reputation of Steemit as a whole. I don't see how it could be made anonymous with it being registered on the blockchain, though.
So, I had an experience that may be relevant here.
I once quoted a user's blog post during debate with that user elsewhere. His reaction was to immediately edit that blog post, deleting the contents and replacing them with a single, content-free sentence.
I spent a couple of minutes attempting to access the unedited version. I did a little googling, tried to figure out how one does that, read a Steemit post asking the same question...could not find an easy (or even a hard) way to do that. I quickly gave up.
It's got to be possible to put this information somewhere that only the most dedicated users could dig up...the kind that would already suspect who was doing this type of thing anyway.
My hope was to silently nullify the curation rewards, rather than flag the post rewards. Suppose I have 10% of the stake in the platform, and I (hypothetically) think Jerry Banfield has enough/too much exposure and I don't want him getting any more curation rewards. I could "blacklist" him down, not unlike voting a witness up, and 10% of his curation reward for voters is simply reassigned to the reward pool.
Some other formula based on stake could work. I'd suggest at least 2X since if 50% of that platform wants to blacklist someone they must be thoroughly curated already. 3X is probably still conservative. At 1X, I'm not sure this makes enough of a difference for people to bother to do it.
Does that make sense?
Well put, seems like it will also help new community members to grow ( I stand to be corrected though). I'll wait and see what others think and hopefully get more insights. Like your arguments; a way to make Steemit better.
Thank you for reading and for your comment!
Curation should be taken away from the bots, that's the first rule. after that we should consider your suggestions.
Do you have any suggestions for a way to achieve this, preferably with a possible workaround for high-quality community bots like the Minnow Support Group bots (their curation helps them upvote more minnows)?
I sense your passion about 'spam' curation pay-outs. I had a thought, which I hope won't occur; but, what if the potential payout-values were hidden. I am for as little regulation as possible. I know for a fact that Steemian bottom-feeders will somehow balance out the eco-system.
I see the Resteem as an opportunity to honor a person's work. Every resteem doesn't bank. Most times it's pennies on the dollar. However, and thankfully, the pennies add up.
Peace.
That's an interesting idea, but I don't think you can truly hide the amount because all the votes are recorded in the block-chain.
I would support changing the rewards display from $ to Steem, though, that would be good for tax optics.
@lexiconical I can't even begin to imagine what managing this growing platform must be like. I am sure the people behind this growing conglomeration breathe, eat and sleep computer design.
I am a believer in consequences. If your motive isn't pure, it will cost you, eventually. I have to say, I like that there are a myriad of ways to earn on Steemit. I rather enjoy being able to Resteem a noteworthy post, and receive a gift of gratitude in the process….sure beats a Facebook thumbs up :+).
As with anything, there will be those who try to 'game' for monetary gain. SMH..At the end of the day, more than likely that costs more than it’s worth. This may sound funny; but, I don't believe we get to keep more of anything in life than allotted.
I am glad to see that you are still vested in Steemit. I notice that a lot of people with your ranking have stopped creating, and are more so just doing the 'maintaining' process. Of course, there's success in that, too! Gotta' love this decentralized platform...Let's revel in the good, keep voicing concerns that need change...and Steem On :+)
Peace.
"I don't believe we get to keep more of anything in life than allotted."
You can't take it with you, as they say.
I'm doing my best to keep up with content creation. It's a busy schedule!
Since your post regarding Resteem limits, I've become more aware of how it's beginning to seem like a Scratch-off lottery ticket....Almost like, hmmmm....let's just see what numbers come up on the pay-out, jackpot or miss.
I don't want to raise your ire on the matter; but perhaps this is all a part of the 'system'. However, when something loses its genuine purpose, it loses its value.
I would support putting a daily or weekly cap on the number of Resteems. I think the original author should be able to decide via constructive replies which ones he deems legitimate, and which ones are merely 'gaming'. It's a fine line; but, if the rules were tweaked down the road, I'd clearly understand, especially after your example.
"I don't want to raise your ire on the matter; but perhaps this is all a part of the 'system'. "
You're absolutely right. The Steem whitepaper even notes that Steem is designed "like a lottery, where all participants overestimate their chances of winning and therefore over-contribute".
I'm not suggesting we should limit resteems at all, people can use them as they wish. I merely tend to unfollow those that use them too often.
The 'over-contributing' part of the equation is certainly an eye-opener. Perhaps, this explains the minimalist attitude of some of the big YouTube (YT) players.
Many only allow the pennies to trickle in, remaining minnows, not investing their own cash. They use Steemit primarily to test the waters, while maintaining their big-kahuna status on YouTube. Of course, this is smart business.
Finally, based on the huge banner ads, which recently started loading on the YT-opening page, I believe once D-Tube gets its sea legs, it may totally transform the primary go-to for the YT viewing audience.
Many thanks for the interesting notation.
Peace.
I'm not sure I know any YT'ers of the kind you refer to, maybe TDV? He's been around awhile though.
I prefer the ones that buy in like Jerry.
@originalworks
@OriginalWorks Mention Bot activated by @lexiconical. The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @lexiconical to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
For more information, Click Here!