RE: A serious attempt at repairing the STEEM Economic Improvement Proposal (eip) for HF21
the last few weeks of transactions when we apply the rules of the first two parts of the EIP to it, don't seem to actually support the narrative.
I assume you have a link to this? And it studies post payout distribution under the new curves? Note that this isn't enough to demonstrate effectiveness (or lack thereof), because incentives will be shifted significantly and change the distribution of posts and claims.
Concerning the split stake: splitting stake is as neutral under EIP as linear. If you are saying that the curve is a direct measure of influence, this is not correct because the reward curve is applied on top of the total rshares of a post, not to each individual vote (forgive me if you already knew that, but this is not obvious). Meaning, 10 votes of 10 rshares does the same to a post as 1 vote of 100 rshares.
I have to admit I do not understand your curator author bucket split. Will probably need some examples on how it works.
Currently, I only have a 2 week run results in an arangodb instance, maybe I'll try putting part of the result into a blog post later.
Let me give a few example with the buckets.
Example 1:
Lets say a post gets 1000 RSHAREs in upvotes and no downvotes under the current system. The author would get about 750 RSHARES and the curators about 250 RSHARES.
Example 2:
If next to the up votes, the post also gets 500 RSHAREs worth of down votes, the author would get about 375 RSHAREs and the curators 125 RSHAREs
Example 3:
If we look at scenario 1 and see what happens in our bucket version of the EIP, the total RSHAREs would be 25% higher for the same voter VESTS, the author would get 833 RSHAREs (2/3) and the curators 417 (1/3)
Example 4:
If we look at scenario 2 and look what happens in our bucket version of the EIP, we get 833 positive RSHARES (2/3) and 208 negative RSHARES (1/3) in the author bucket and we get 417 (1/3) positive against 417 negative RSHAREs (2/3) in he curator bucket. This means the author gets 625 RSHARES while the curators get zero.
Hope the buckets concept make sense like this.
What are your thoughts on the nS^Log(n) curves?
Better than n^2 in terms of posts of runaway value, but rather uncertain about the fairness of it. Because it's logarithmic it strikes me as possibly okay, as it really doesn't grow all that fast at all.
Speaking of the curve, the choice that's being settled on in the code looks like
(((n+s)^2 - s^2)/(n+4s)Still have to think on the buckets a little but figured I'd respond with this first
Suppose a selfvoter abusing plagiarism. He upvotes himself with 1000 rshares, and after that he receives 1000 rshares in downvotes. Let see what happens:
In conclusion, the plagiarism receives 333, and downvoters lose 333 for nothing (they put 1000 where only 666 where applied).
If downvoters want to give 0 to the author, they have to use 2000 rshares in downvotes (twice as much as in upvotes). So it will be more difficult to fight plagiarism, and bad content.
You forget about the second proposed rule:
The idea is that at pay out time a "negative" curator bucket is filled up to zero with what remains in the author bucket first. So at 1000 and -900
Will you update your : The formula of curation - Post with the new changes?
Yes :)
https://steemit.com/steem/@jga/complete-guide-to-understand-rewards-in-hf21-part-1
https://steemit.com/steem/@jga/complete-guide-to-understand-rewards-in-hf21-part-2
Ohhh how can I thank you, thx a thousand times.