RE: An Analysis of 50% Curation Rewards in EIP and HF21 - All Delegators Should Read This
THis was interesting to read, thanks.
The question that is going to be very hard to address is, *what happens when downvotes are applied to content that may or may not have been boosted. If a voter comes along and decides to add a whatever value downvote, author runs the risk of making a loss and curators have the gap closed further to the 50/50 of curation, right? If ost of the purchasers are coming from larger buyers, if they are forced to stop buying because the community decides to downvote it, more buyers are needed to reach the max ROI, which could prove difficult. This is not able to be calculated until we can see if the community will downvote - but it does add a layer of complexity and risk that wasn't present earlier (at least not with zero cost like HF21)
I don't disagree with the downvote pool. If for nothing else it will help those who do use downvotes for the good of the platform and are now giving up potential upvote returns to do so.
I also don't think we'll see any more people doing downvotes. The culture of people reacting badly to them is well established and unlikely to change any time soon. So, it will only be larger accounts downvoting smaller accounts and more wars starting if there is an increase.
Pessimistic? Maybe. Or maybe I've just seen enough of this over the last 3 years to realize that while downvotes are supposed to be a healthy part of the ecosystem, they are anything but.
I agree but, it can change at some point slowly.
The difference is this time there is incentive for everyone, including authors to take an active role. Whether they do is up to them.
As an author I don't see any incentive for me to downvote and invite a flagwar. I have rarely used downvotes during my time here. They usually have always been responding to someone being bullied or plagiarism. Although I eventually realized when it came to plagiarism I was better off to report the person to Steemcleaners and let them deal with it.
So, maybe you can explain how there is an incentive?
Just continue doing this to return it to the pool and you will still have 10 full votes to reward the content you do enjoy. Slowly it will reduce the plagiarism and the like. If everyone does it, the place looks better without it costing them. curate positively and negatively the areas you care about.
When it comes to the big voters, they should be stepping up to take care of the big abusers an as independents, they can moderate the places they care about too. Steemcleaners is limited to a framework of abuse only, individuals are free to choose.
I guess that is where I see the problems largely are @tarazkp ... I have watched over the last three years and some (very few) of the larger voters have tried to stem abuse and virtually no support from their peers. I don't really see that ending and them finally realizing they have a role to play that is not all about their own profits.
That is one of the reasons I've had respect for bernie ... as off the wall as he can be, at the root of it has always been trying to clean up bad actors.
If I'm wrong and some of them do take their heads out of the windowless place they are and start stepping up. Some of the middle level voters may follow suit. Until it starts at the big guys... I rather expect the rest will carry on as is and and other than some new flag wars, the crud will continue.
The difference is this time that there is no cost for 2.5x for that downvote, up until now there always has been.
maybe it will, maybe it will be the most of the active voting stake on the platform of orcas and dolphins that do it. 1800 odd active dolphin or orcas and 6000 active minnows might make a difference, if they choose to.
I can't fault your optimism @tarazkp ..I hope I'm wrong and it's well placed. Time will tell.
If we aren't optimistic about being able to affect the future, why try?
Agreed. I've probably used the chain in a similar way to you - any genuine abuse can always be reported; I don't need to enter a flag tit-for-tat. And if I was to downvote everything I disagreed with, I'd soon end up without any VP or RC left ;-)
Yeah I stay right away from the 'this post is overvalued' concept. Value of posts is subjective at best. I've seen some really lousy writing get great upvotes cause at least some of the readers don't care how painful it is to read.
haha... that's funny... One thing I did mention is that some people are not actually being upvoted for the quality of their articles but rather for other work they may be doing within chatrooms etc. Not everyone, but some.
this is true. There some folks doing some good work and people want to support them. I do hope that when folks upvote my work it is more about the work than anything else I'm doing. Improving as a writer is important to me.
i never read your stuff. i just like you.
tee hee hee ;)
I really wanted to focus on the curation issue as I was seeing a lot of confused comments and a lot of wishful thinking, and it is more amenable to mathematical analysis. I avoided the downvotes as it seems like more of a social issue and therefore calculations will be more meaningful once we see how people (and their bots) react.
Yep, I completely understand. It is going to be an interesting HF at least because it brings in the chance for more social performance factors that can't be calculated at this point.
agreed, the downvotes will largely depend on behaviour but the votes are math. The impact of the bot voting is important to have a clear view of. You attending @aggroed's witness forum today? It's on at 1pm EDT in the PAL discord.
Wasn't planning to - it's midnight here!! But as I'm awake I'll see what 1 pm EDT means for me... might be 2 AM... I'll check.
Oh ok, it's like... almost now! sure, why not. thanks for the heads up.