RE: WOW!!! I found a much better decentralised social media network guys!!! It's better than Steem!!!
"So now I'm feeling like a sucker for holding out for many months (not that I'm working hard), while losing out to most that are doing the rational thing of vote bidding and relentless self-voting, much to my dislike."
I read your comment and have felt that really struck a cord with me as well. The frustration of seeing a lot of my support delegate their power away to the the voting bots and you certainly get that feeling sometimes that maybe I should just break bad and be a 90% self vote Rat Bastard or just run an upvote bot as well.
There certainly are a lot of positives going on here.
I seriously flip back and forth even within the same day of thinking HOLLY Shit this is the best thing of all time and all this development and activity is going on and it is changing people's lives around the world ........ to thinking that I have spent too much time here and really never made the return on my time and money that I anticipated.
Personally I think shifting away from linear rewards would be way worse than where we are now. 2016 Steemit felt like being a court jester trying to impress a god king. It was a very helpless feeling for sure.
Hi Brian,
Here hence lies the problem:
For all smaller stake holder near the boarder size of minnow-dolphins and below, the economic benefit of self-upvoting is really not that beneficial, we can do much better using our upvote to networking (eg. Comment upvoting), encourage others, and in the spirit of adding value, bigger fishes who recognise our efforts still overtake our own payout from any self-upvote efforts.
The problems arise with those 50,000Steem and above seeing that talent to gain a $15-$25 post is not worth the effort when they can just bot it out.
In short you and I will never benefit as much breaking bad, we're just too small, we can only give up, and if enough of us give up adding great value to Steem it will become very bad for the bigger fishes.
They balance lies in part in this statement by Kevin
without Orcas and Whales withholding some modest percentage % SP back to be reinvested....there will be NO LONG TERM INCENTIVE for Value Content Growth and New Talent Retention.
Go read the Reply section whole post to see this argument laid out for all:
700,000SP Whale Upvoting Self 98%
https://steemit.com/funny/@traf/singing-in-the-shower
The truth is that the Whales Are The Ones who also need the education & Awareness on how they are stunting their own Steem value appreciation.
Thanks @dj123, you are the #comedyopenmic hero,
I am a small fish participating in the #comedyopenmic contest and I am happy that the entry I have on #comedyopenmic is always a lot of upvote people compared to my other entries.
And if @kevinwong join the contest #comedyopenmic we are very grateful.
Forgive me, as a disrespectful little fish for commenting on your writing, but me and all contestants #comedyopenmic will be very happy if you are in the contest.
I'd personally be in favour of trying something in between linear and n^2. Or else maybe the default acceptable position for every account here is to somehow have a good chunk of SP like 90% somehow coming back to voters, and only 10% gets distributed to others. Now i'm still at about 2% vs 98%, hence the suckerish feeling lol.
you're a good man Kevin, but even a strong community builder like you must have some influence on him, 98% is not sustainable, and when people of influence and talent do it, it's almost worst, it telling other talent and also leaders like yourself, that if you are in profit, or if you succeed here, DO NOT re-invest to build the house that homes your great wealth, let it slowly collapse.
would it not be better if they just cash out now at 10x profit, let new blood, new whales will probably do more than just pull close to 100% resources out and slow down adoption, talent retention.... the last 4 months we have almost 350-400K new accounts and dropping posting and even a slight drop in active usage rate in the last 2 months, plateauing at best.....how is that even possible a certain % should naturally be talent..... that is unless people don't get incentivised to stay cause the rewards are being slowly and invisibly pulled away?
I think there needs to be a push on changing the reward curve that currently incentivices selfish-mining. Now that I'm doing ~1-2% self all along, I might have my SP 50% lower than a purely selfish miner with the same SP today, in maybe a year or two. So in effect, I'll be having less to support others in the future from doing what I do today. Plus the big thing is that it's an open platform and everyone's free to do whatever they want - there's no guarantee of rewards. It's not like getting hired for a job doing X, Y, and, Z.
Why would anyone now give more of their votes away to help grow the network when on the long-term, the reward curve isn't encouraging more investors to spread out the votes other than to themselves? Now that I've not been onto selfish-mining ever since most people are onto it since HF equality was introduced, imagine how much influence has been diluted on my side?
It's almost a crime not to have kept up with the rational move for the long-term game after hf equality has taken place. I was a bit naive thinking most would stay on course of distributing the stakes to grow the network. It's really not clear cut what the best move is @dj123.
Sorry to say, but it's also arguable that it's easy for most new users to complain while providing trivial contributions (to be fair, like 99.99% of us) on the network, which on the whole, any rewards would be a great bonus that shouldn't be taken at face value at current valuations. But all in all, the reward curve could change to make altruism equally profitable so more people will shift away from selfish-mining. Either that or a community where connections are made closer over time so effective altruism can take place.