You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Thoughts on the Current Experiment and Potential Strategies
Flattening the vote power curve would have much the same effect in terms of completely changing the game and greatly reducing the rewards that come from 'patrons who have deep pockets' (unless, of course, they actually pay those rewards out of those pockets). To earn more with a flatter curve (as currently with whales sitting out or being countered with downvotes) will require getting (and keeping) a larger base of followers.
Two counterpoints to this argument.
This argument assumes the experiment will be successful and a larger user base will come into Steemit. I would suggest to you the experiment is creating more badwill than goodwill because of the user perception of what a flag means. No bot script or politically correct message will change the perception of being collateral damage in an ongoing flag war. One cannot build a larger base from a diminishing group.
I do agree it will force users to seek out a larger user base. That certainly has an Orwellian sound to it. One cannot simply compel user engagement at the point of a gun or threat of diminished rewards. Punishing a user for employing a successful strategy which earns larger rewards with a smaller patronage is identical to punishing a programmer for writing clean and elegant code. Consider that brands partner with social influencers to leverage their social capital (in essence upvotes) to earn rewards in the form of customers buying. It benefits them to grow a following organically on other social media sites, but they are not forced to grab a larger user base to earn proportionate rewards. If anything they are rewarded greatly for their efficiency. Pursuing a similar strategy of efficiency here means chasing vote power. It is only logical that on a site where upvotes are linked to the size of the user's stake, that is the primary driver in a strategy, and social capital is relegated to a lower tier. Again, an individual should not be punished for pursuing a strategy of efficiency.
Personally, I support some kind of flattening of the vote power curve. I think larger stakeholders deserve greater vote weight to allocate the rewards pool, but the current vote power curve is clearly broken. I agree with many of the other members of the Steemit community that it's good to see my votes actually impact rewards to authors I support.
I think the community as a whole is open to this idea as well, but engaging flagging/downvoting to counterbalance whale votes creates a seriously negative perception among many minnows and dolphins. Some of them have taken the time to cultivate relationships to earn higher rewards, which both allows and motivates them to produce incredible, value-added content to this site. They should not be arbitrarily punished for pursuing a strategy used successfully on other social media platforms.
The flagging may have a noble purpose, but in the end, the body count is starting to stack up. Can we agree that fixing the problem would be a better solution than arbitrary vigilante justice euphemized into the phrase "an experiment"?
I'm not sure why you answered my comments out of order but this is completely out of context. My comments were related to the prospect of a flatter curve being implemented in the code (since that was something you seemed to advocate in your post), and how that would affect the factors for success of content on the platform. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the present 'experiment'.
My point is that a flatter curve will greatly shift emphasis and success factors toward larger follower sets. This is essentially the same outcome as the current 'experiment'. Whatever gripes you may have with methods, the conclusions about whether you will be highly successful focusing on those with deep pockets is much the same (that is, you won't, unless you get them to donate directly, rather than have vastly disproportionate influence over the reward pool).
@smooth rather than attempting to persuade a closed mind to consider a different perspective or consider unintended consequences, I think I'd prefer to end the conversation here. May you get the results you seek.