RE: An Opponent of the Exponent: Making the Case for Vshare Linearity
I have seen many users, whale and non whale alike refer to stake concentration as the single biggest problem facing steem. And personally, I am inclined to agree.
So how is this relvant to the n^2 distribution? Simply speaking, the n^2 distribution serves to magnify the effect of the already existant cocentration of stake in an important part of the platform. If anything, it is desirable (to the extent fair play would allow) to ameliorate the effects of this concentration. But at the very least, we should try to magnify it as little as possible.
I agree on this point (previous comment was written after I misread what you wrote so I edited it)
I am going to post some specific numbers comparing our super linear system with a linear system
This is gong to be a nonsense analysis that assumes voting behavior doesn't change under a completely different ruleset.
BTW, I'm in favor of a flatter curve but I don't think it is necessary to go all the way to linear and entirely remove the favor that the system gives to content where there is a consensus of stakeholders in support. The n log n curve that has been proposed to be used for a separate comment would seems like it would be fine to just use for everything. Most of the extreme effects you describe in your post due to n^2 would no longer exist.
I don't think everything will stay exactly the same, voting habits will probably change. but i also don't think a change like this is enough to make it freaky friday.
And there is actually information that can be predicted with certainty (for example, the value of a users vote , provided we can count on vote utilization to remain relatively constant.)
Yeah, i think n log n would solve most of the problems and a compromise solution like that seems like it has way more support.
Then the change isn't worth making (to be clear I think it is worth making, but I think it would cause, over time, tectonic shifts in the voting behavior and user perceptions, both at the high and and the low end).