HF21 Addition: Vote Window Change

in hf21 •  3 months ago 

voting window.jpg

Hello Steemians, in the interest of keeping you all fully informed about the upcoming Hardfork we would like to inform you of a change that was proposed by the Witnesses with near-unanimous support. The change would reduce the “vote window” of a post from 15 minutes to 1 minute. Previously this window had been 30 minutes, but was reduced to 15 minutes in Hardfork 20.

Vote Window?

What the “vote window” means is that if a Steem user upvotes a post (“comments” are a type of post) immediately after it is published, they will receive a reduced curation reward. Only once 15 minutes have elapsed, and a vote is rendered, will that Steem user receive the full curation reward.

Because the Witnesses presented unanimous support, we coded up the changes and merged them into the release candidate. But we can easily undo these changes if necessary. We do not have any reason to believe that this change would adversely impact Steem, but we have not had sufficient time to perform the level of analysis we would ideally prefer.

If you’d like to learn more, @thecryptodrive has written a post that explains why he supports this change.

Your Witnesses

If you would like to learn more about why the Witnesses have made this decision, or if you do not agree with their decision, please let them know in the comments sections below. Ultimately it is your delegated stake that gives the Witnesses the authority to make these decisions, and if you do not feel those decisions are the right ones, then you should remove your Witness vote and allocate it to a Witness whose decisions are more aligned with your interests.

The Steemit Team

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I have a feeling this is going to be either the best hardfork ever or the worst hardfork ever :D
Hoping for the best.

Have the same impression

Posted using Partiko iOS

Well, hopefully since the last hard fork hard forked us all, this one will be a bit better.

Most new people using this system were getting pretty screwed. They see a post, upvote it, and don't even know they are losing a bunch of their curation rewards. The rule was really made for back when we had exponetial rewards and the same 10 authors were the only ones making anything. So, getting on the post first really mattered. Here it's not as important since the change to linear rewards. To me new users are losing curation rewards as the con, and there's really no more pro since the change to linear. It's an easy decision to include for me.

Hah, not true, If you are the first voter you get 1/4 of your vote value to start with and not 1/8 of your vote value whenever you vote.

Solid point and just for that reason alone I think it's a solid change.

Things like this comment are the reason that witnesses need to take time to make posts about how they feel about proposals.

I like the change of 1 min window. Good idea and initiative.

I've long been a proponent of this change and I'm very glad to see it finally implemented. I originally proposed setting it at 5 minutes about a year or two ago, but at the time it was instead reduced from 30 to 15 minutes as a compromise of some kind. But even 15 minutes was too much, IMO, because I think many voters weren't aware of it or didn't have the patience to wait that long before voting on a "hot" post, so they wound up losing curation rewards for no good reason.

I agree. I think this is a good change. However, I don't think the EIP is.

I think we need to rethink that as it looks an awful lot like just wanting to try stuff because the price of steem is down.

It seems very likely to me that free downvotes will be used for personal reasons the vast majority of the time which will make this place much worse.

But even 15 minutes was too much, IMO, because I think many voters weren't aware of it or didn't have the patience to wait that long before voting on a "hot" post, so they wound up losing curation rewards for no good reason.

Oh! then... "CURATORS" have not the patience to "CURATE" Huh?

And yet, they even think they are entitled to call themselves CONTENT_CURATORS? ¿right?

By chance, is it because nobody here has the slightest idea that The Ancient Art Of Patience is actually implicit and is fundamental in any role that imply curation and is key in every shit that is worth to be curated? Organically & In Person actively curated!

Sheez! look no further in what linguistic, syntax, semantics and etymology has turn out to be in these blockchain days. Holy crap!

@por500bolos What is this sentence?

CURATORS have not the patience to CURATE

First of all, I don't think @blocktrades spoke for itself and even if that were the case why should curators be added unnecessary additional constraints? Do you think that the curative work is simple and does not take time to complete? Have you try to do it? Not for 1 easy day but for months? Are you one of those people who think that curation is a due, that if the curators fail to vote one of your posts they have made a professional mistake?

Now, my reading of this sentence is more like that:

On the one hand we are told that our posts can only be voted for 7 days and on the other hand that we have to wait 15 minutes to vote, that it is a beautiful and implacable logic!

On the one hand we are asked to be viral (a pity for all those who spend hours writing very enriching but non-viral posts) and on the other hand to avoid it because we should not vote the first 15 minutes.

The Ancient Art Of Patience has nothing to do here, it's not for people to adapt to Steem but for Steem to adapt to people unless of course it does not want to democratize and remain forever a royalist and elitist niche product.

A good developer is one who does something by thinking for users and not for himself.

In one year, Steem has allowed me to meet very interesting people and I really hope that Dev's team will continue to correct its past mistakes in order to stop this wave of Steemian's departure.

@por500bolos What is this sentence? "CURATORS have not the patience to CURATE"

No, I didn't write the 'sentence' like you are quoting it you know?

I've clearly written: Oh! then... "CURATORS" have not the patience to "CURATE" Huh?

Notice the difference? It is a Question not an Affirmation.

Now, my reading of this sentence is more like that:

Yeah! I know pretty well how you are reading the sentence and everything else in my comment: ¡Evidently out of context! ¿Am I right?

However, I can understand your little mistake. Since I have the hunch, that same as me, english is not your native tongue. Hence, your english is notoriously weirder than mine. And from that fact, the why you are misinterpreting and twisting everything I've meant on my comment.

So, I'm gonna suggest that you read my comment one more time. This time more slowly and with a spanglish dictionary at hand. I bet you will find many new means that escaped your comprehension radar the first time. :)

Lol what ?

¿what?

...well, just click & learn @howo Hahaha. :p

@blocktrades your steem power is not in use can you give me some delegation on cheap rates i am poor

:DDD

Possibly...but most of those people probably don't have that much stake. Minnows are lucky if they get a few Steem in curation. Steem being in the gutter is probably the only thing giving newbs a chance to have a nice stake. Maybe someone came here and put their retirement in or something and became an orca.

Where are such discussions being held? We've been seeking to join the Steemit slack for so long, unfortunately to no listening ears, if that's where those chats take place...

As a witness currently ranked 34, @actifit is very much interested in participating and voicing out our opinion wherever we find necessary or helpful.

We are supportive of above decision from our perspective.

I like this change I think it goes more hand in hand with "natural use"... Read it, if you like it upvote it, none of the BS of trying to remember to go back 15 minutes later.

Anytime will be gamed by bots, so this just allows humans to get in there too.

Of course many quality posts can't be read in 1 minute, so guessing the real curators will lose out to the in this only for the profit curators.

the use of the word curation on this platform is largely bastardized. It's more a voting race while other people who take the concept of curation seriously plod along behind to find the real jewels.

Most can be read faster than 15 minutes though. Unless they're really boring. Or long. Or long and boring. Mostly long and boring.

There are other types of quality content that can be reviewed very quickly though. Drawings take a quite a long time to do and can be viewed for quality pretty quickly. Photographs as well.

My point exactly.

Of course many quality posts can't be read in 1 minute, so guessing the real curators will lose out to the in this only for the profit curators.

Without a doubt that would be precisely the case. Yes @practicalthought, very accurate. ;)

I still don't understand this "go back 15 minutes later" thing.
For most people in most cases, the curation reward is the largest if the vote is placed between 5-10 minutes. And it will take 5 minutes in most cases to find a post and read it. So even if someone knows how the curation window works, waiting is unnecessary. So you can simply not pay attention to it.



https://beempy.com/curation/@whatsup/mathematical-incentives-only-work-if-the-stakeholders-use-them

I'm pretty sure most people don't run statistical analysis on whether or not it's worth to just vote early. There are a ton of people who get crap for rewards, so it's not like they'll get a ton of rewards suddenly after a few minutes.

These kinda things can be done easily by bots though.

No, but it's a valid counter-argument to aggroed's point that we are saving newbies from losing curation rewards when, actually, voting within the 15 mins can result in much higher rewards.

Well I don't math, so... and I shouldn't have to Math to read a damn post and upvoteit.

I know that this is ridiculous that this voting system is complicated for the user. But ... we are changing from
"the system where you really don't need to make any waiting for vote BS"
to
"the system where you really don't need to make any waiting for vote BS, but voting bots get more curation rewards than users"

Well that's how it is going to work no matter what.

It's always been true - it's how the central bank of steem works.

All this 1 minute window is doing is mitigating the mixture of increasing curation rewards plus a decrease in payouts for most posts. If the 15 mins was kept, then it would add some curation-reward losses for some upvoters.

It is giving with one hand and taking away with the other - while algorithmic-curation-rewards-mining will be done by the fastest bots.

Yeah, I have a similar position.

It might even be easier for bots. Hell, they can even calculate whether it's worth it to vote early if there's another bot that tends to vote early as well.

This will be beneficial for comment upvoting and I don't really see a difference between 15 minutes to 1 minute when people are going to automate it anyways!

That's exactly right @lunaticpandora. :)

Upvoting comments is actually something else quite different than reward author's posts and original content from a curation point of view

1 minute or less may be enough to read entirely a comment and upvote it if is deserved. Though, while a comment even can be longer, juicier and tastier than a whole original post, the willing to reward them handsomely in signal of appreciation & recognition, mostly have anything to do with 'curation rewards'

In my humble redfish opinion a 5 minute window might work more ideally than 1 minute, so as to encourage people to actually read the posts they are upvoting/curating, as opposed to just skimming the contents to get the jump on everyone else in the curation game..

Just vote on what you like and feel deserves some rewards or recognition. If you think about being in a curation "game" then the system is already flawed. At least with HF21 you'll get better curstion rewards by just voting what you like compared to now.

I personally do not try to game anything. I actively currate based on quality of the post. My whole point is to encourage others to do the same. More people would likely read a post as opposed to skim it if the window was 5 minutes instead of 1.

I actively currate based on quality of the post. My whole point is to encourage others to do the same.

Yep, I agree @paradigm42!! That's exactly what 'currate' actually means. ;)

I agree, don't care so much about rewards on curation, do care about what you reward.

Those using their own scripts for voting are going to do very well placing their votes in this window. Those using steemauto/steemvoter will have varying results, although not anywhere close to those running their own setup.

IF

curators come out of the woodwork to find undervalued content, 1 minute will work well for those quick to see the potential of a post.

I made the 'if' quite big, not sure if it should be bigger.

I made the 'if' quite big, not sure if it should be bigger.

Of course @abh12345.

It's more than obvious that the 'if' should be way bigger!! };)

if.png

This is being gamed by experts and enthusiasts for experts and enthusiasts. I don't see how further complicating things is going to attract a ton of people.
The beauty of Steem was anyone could understand amd do dpos.
Now try to explain how to do it well without robots and with reading and not memorizing a list of consistently good authors (by good I mean actually good and not just Steem VVIPs)

Posted using Partiko Android

make it bigger lol

that's as big as it gets, sorry :P

This is GREAT news....
...for witnesses, whales, insiders, staff, and bots.
It takes from the 'have-nots' to enrich the 'haves'. It's another nail in the coffin of this community.

The big game here is making curation more profitable than content creation. In the long term, it is expected that curation patterns change in benefit for the authors, but that might not happen.

A vote received before 30/15 mins meant more author reward, and even that is taken out of the equation? what's left for authors if people keep curating the same way they've been doing it so far? How will new users be persuaded to come use Steemit if chances for a reward are being diminished with each hardfork?

I'm not very optimistic about these changes as I see those with the more stake receiving more out of their cryptocurrencies and giving less for this site to function as it was previously designed. I'm afraid curation patterns will stay the same and authors will be less motivated to create content. The long run you hope for might not happen...

A vote received before 30/15 mins currently doesn't mean more author rewards (that was changed in HF20, IIRC, because it only encouraged early self-voting). Instead, those funds are "burned" under current rules.

Not burned, distributed into the rewards pool

Right, you're correct, I misspoke. But the essential point is that it doesn't go to the author now: the HF isn't changing that.

Hello there,
I know, thanks for reminding us that. It would be great to have some statistics regarding self-voting after HF20 and if the objective was met. Since you have a voice and ideas given for Steemit to improve, I would like to take the opportunity and ask you,

  • How about only eliminating the timeframe for voting and leaving the rewards as they are now?
  • Why going up to 50% instead of 35%? for example.
  • What kind of calculations are behind those numbers?

What I'm thinking here is that curation can be stimulated but not to the point of making that equal to content creation. Of course, I'm asking for things beyond what has been posted about this. Perhaps since you've been involved in those talks this post mention were held, you can give us some more info about the reasoning behind the decisions.

In any case, thank you.

50/50 between authors and curators isn't even close to "equal to content curation". Because there's one author and a lot of voters.

Saying equal is talking about the rate of distribution. It's a 1:1 relationship. But of course, what you are saying it's completely true. There can be many voters on one post, and while they get the 50% of their vote back, the author collects the other 50% that represents the addtion of all those 50% from each voter. Still, we see 400 votes on a post that equal 2 STEEM and while the author obtained 1.5 now he would obtain 1. Whether those votes got there through trails, or bots, or manual curation, it's still concerning how this change will affect content creation.

It would be amazing to define the standars to see proof of brain actually met on the platform as a guide for current and new users. Maybe something the dev team could work on and publish as general guidelines.

There wasn't an special calculation performed to come up with 50/50 vs some other combination. 50/50 is just a reversion to a formula that was working better.

After the switch to 75/25, we saw the rise of vote bots and the result was that manual curators like me pretty much gave up in disgust. The rules of voting became simple under 75/25: delegate to vote bots or have your stake eroded badly versus those who didn't delegate to vote bots. Either way, eventually all stake was going to be delegated to voting bots.

I also saw a pretty clear decline in the quality of articles on trending as a result, destroying the promise of "proof of brain" on the platform.

hey, thanks for answering. This is pretty interesting. You think reversing the formula back to 50/50 would have an impact against bots? Manual curation can be increased after this hardfork?

That's the main intent of the 50/50 change, to encourage more manual curation again.

Not burned, passed through to the trending page.

The vote window has been a major problem for a long time. I have never seen any reason to have it so long. If I see a post and vote it it should only matter what my stake is, not the timeframe in which I vote the post. This hopefully will remove the stupid game of curating and make it more organic. Making a game automatically makes people try to cheat it or maximize it. If everyone is equal across the board then there is more likely to be honest curation.

At least I hope.

Yea! The bots win!

Now they get the best curation rewards and auto voting won't help unless @mahdiyari codes sub one minute votes.

How does the reverse auction work?
Seconds change the penalty?

Naturally it is a done deal, too.
Smdh.

I dont know why, atp, I'm still surprised.
Things have only gotten worse since i got here. (Except rc's)
When does that change?

sub-one-minute votes

lol
A great feature for premium users!

And there it is 👍🏽

so to maximize curation rewards... we should upvote BEFORE we read the content then?!

That's a weird change and to me it honestly just looks like large stakeholders with their auto-voting want to make sure they can stay ahead of the organic curation?!?

That was exactly the first thing that came to mind. First it was the 50/50 curation, so we consider and think, well OK. Small accounts may be able to still do OK with increased curation if they get the timing right.

HF21: Hold my beer. I'll stop that too.

Yeah, I used to be a fan of the 50/50 model.

I thought it could be a good encouragement to spend time in the "new" section and look for gems, not like many whales would actually put any time into that, but they might have seen a reason to support or even organize such manual curation initiatives.

No, that would almost look too much like "proof-of-brain", so instead, let's just make sure auto-voting circle-jerks stay hip and give all the benefit to content indifferent subscription votes... YAY!

It gets more stupid with each change. Then they wonder why Steem makes new lows every day.

I don't know how many people remember @grumpycat, and his trying to show people what a bad actor could do with self votes. If a person wants to give themselves a really big payday under the 1 minute rule it will be easy to do. Very easy in fact. Make a post, self vote it, make 9 place holder comments like gumpycat did, then on day 7 at the last possible minute up vote your own comments. 10 100% votes, you may lose a tad bit of curation on the original post if others voted your post, but the 9 comments at the last minute no problem all yours. So if you have a $10.00 100% vote value you could potentially have a $100 dollar payday. This would work for little people also, as log as their vote was above the dust vote threshold, they could grow their accounts with out any assistance from anyone at all.

Do away with the Self Vote rule and above problem will never happen.

Even if we couldn't self vote it's easy to delegate to another account. It's an seems race to deal with each form of abuse and Steem cannot evolve quickly enough.

it will always be a race. If they coded it in proper so that self votes could not be done at all, it would kill a lot of programs. Still if they coded it to where if you have delegated to an account then that account would be seen as a self vote and would be unable to vote on your account. Of course all this would do is force people to send their steem to an account and not delegate to it.

Doing away with bad actors is never going to happen. It does not matter how much code is written it will never be enough to stop greed. and the hunt for easy money. People can scream, whine and rant all day long about steem block chain being decentralized, and it is. The Block Chain is Decentralized, not the protection of the coin, or the other front ends.

People can put and say what ever they want on the block chain. No one is going to be able to completely hide that information they were so proud to post. The protection of the Coin Steem is not decentralized. The witnesses may be the ones that determine how the reward pool works, but does that mean they own the reward pool?

Criminal activity will never end when there is money involved. Those that have it, will do what ever it takes to get more of it. Those that do not have it will do whatever it takes to get it.

I am not sure when the payout window completely ends, not allowed to vote any more on a post/comment. So lets just say it is on day 6 at 18 hours. Code it so that any vote received in the last 5 hours, day 6 hour 13-18, will be erased from the pay out. This give the so called protectors of the reward pool a 5 hour window or better to catch bad actors and down vote the rewards. Of course if they did this then it just lead to complaints of I just saw the post, I wanted to vote the post cause I liked it, or post about well lets just shorten the time frame then to 6 days 13 hours for voting, and completely miss the point.

I have no solutions, will self voting grumpycat style return? no clue. Can it be done as describe and give a good pay out, no doubt. Will the bad actors be caught and if they are will anything be done? Depends on who they are, how big a rep they have and how much SP they have.

With 50%/50% and the move away from linear rewards, that method is obsolete.

With 50/50 If you comment, and then you vote and are the only voter then 100% would go to you? or not? I was just informed that with the new reward curve the only accounts that self vote would make a difference on are the very large accounts, so I guess the reward pool protectors can just ignore any last minute voting then.

I'm not fully sure how the rewards are allocated with comments, but I think that who ever is in the comment string might share the rewards.

I agree that the current 15 minutes is too long, but currently the 15-minute-window means that as a result of the competition of autovoters trying to get in before each other, a lot of curation rewards are going back into the rewards pool.
If this change is implemented together with the 50/50 split (which I am in favour of), this will mean not only doubling curation rewards, but increasing them even more, leaving less for authors. A 5-minute window would be a better solution in my opinion.

5 minutes would have been much more reasonable. Most of my posts take at least a few minutes to read (and several hours to write, and often days to research). Pushing the upvote window to the first 60 seconds is great for bots and insiders.

Setting to 1 minute improves the user experiences that is for sure. But this may bring more bots in.

can there really be any more? :D

I see many people preparing to “front” vote on more whales and orcas content without ever reading it. 🤷🏼‍♂️😂

Posted using Partiko iOS

It's sad that so much content is not read. Makes a joke of the system. I don't vote strategically anyway. I'm out to vote up good content with what little sp I have

Totally agree. Let’s see what happens 😬

Posted using Partiko iOS

I didn't have time to read all of this comment.

Are you not a speed reader? Remember when it was possible to at least scan just about every new post? :)

I do.
1200 daily authors when i got here.

New is looking better.

How many were Kingscrown' or sweettsssj' ? :D

They were members of the fortunate few.
The original golden boys, and girls.
Very favored by stinc, et al.
Very winnerz!

The multiple accounts hadn't become a problem, yet.
That i knew.

They were there but kicked up a notch with the 2017 peaks

I wish. More so, I wish I was a speed typist.

Imagine the state of mind after reading all the steem posts. I think the brain can only withstand so much nonsense. :D

From my understanding, that method won't be as profitable with the new reward curve, but people are lazy and don't want to learn, so yeah prob lol

It’s going to be a week of testing, let’s see how it goes 😬

Posted using Partiko iOS

Oh after this week the Hf might be live?!

Posted using Partiko iOS

At 4️⃣0️⃣ seconds

  ·  3 months ago (edited)

Who has the script lol

This is a good change in all honesty. That means those who skim new posts and move on to other content will probably leave a vote. However, with the way things are going it seems the Hard fork is prioritising curators more than the authors. The 50/50 split is my biggest concern. If that goes through I can guarantee low earners who make up the largest part of this community will vanish.

Posted using Partiko Android

Guess who also benefits from people curating more and in better ways? Authors 🙂

I know what you mean, but with the 50/50 curation rewards increase meaning bots make more money. In your estimation, do you think large steem holders will start curating manually or will the delegate to bots and earn more via curation rewards passively.

Posted using Partiko Android

Increased curation rewards doesn't mean more money for vote bots. If bot votes are worth less to authors, people will pay less money to get their articles upvoted.

If you're talking about curation bots, it's hard to say what will happen, it depends on if people just vote based on author names or on author content. Humans competing against bots on curation should win: humans can read and bots can't.

I meant both curation and voting bots. The bid bots could easily change up their code to offer a profit after 50% curation rewards and then offer curation rewards to the delegators as well.

The voting and commenting activity shows that accounts are more active on posts created by authors with large SP because they want that vote on their comment.

I hope it is the case with humans beating bots, but like in a post I did about this people will always take the easy way out. Passive income is more attractive unfortunately.

Posted using Partiko Android

from people curating more and in better ways?

Not sure the flood of votes at 1 minute is a better way for posts that are 5-10 minute reads or longer.

The reason it changed to one minute was to stop the bots winning every single vote race.

What's changed? Oh yes that's it, most of the top witnesses own bots!

Cg

I think its nice idea..

Looking forward to the vote window change, never really understood the vote window and reducing curation rewards for "early" voters.

It is so bots don't vote in the first few seconds before anyone can even read the post.

It's great to see more posts from you guys and the fact that you're actually listening to the community and implementing logical requests.

Actually the community does not benefit from this change. It benefits the insiders and witnesses. Which is why the community was not consulted, and the vote was only put to the insiders. Aren't you paying attention? Silly comment.

Insiders? More like anyone who wanted to comment and join the conversation with constructive input. When was the last time you attended a witness forum on discord?

Shortened voting window and modified rewards curve sounds like beneficial changes to me.
Too bad we will be having a hard time attributing effects because of the multitude of changes at once. I hope we will have regular forks with singular changes in the future.

Posted using Partiko Android

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

@steemitblog 15 minute voting system is waste of money now if a person vote instantly curation reward burn and goes to penalty so its better to remove the minute terms for curation

So now reading the posts will be completely irrelevant? Why should I bother creating quality content if no one will read it? Should I go back to post a single image with a single line of text, as I did when I had no followers?

With this change shorter content is more encouraged


You just planted 0.10 tree(s)!


Thanks to @ucukertz

We have planted already
7879.50 trees
out of 1,000,000


Let's save and restore Abongphen Highland Forest
in Cameroonian village Kedjom-Keku!
Plant trees with @treeplanter and get paid for it!
My Steem Power = 24292.79
Thanks a lot!
@martin.mikes coordinator of @kedjom-keku
treeplantermessage_ok.png

Only once 15 minutes have elapsed, and a vote is rendered, will that Steem user receive the full curation reward.

Wait... Time of vote is not the only factor. So vote placed at 5 min or 10 min could be more profitable than after 15 min.

Indeed. It is even possible to get huge curation rewards, way above 100% - with or without the reverse-auction window.

Congratulations @steemitblog!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

  • Comments - Ranked 1 with 119 comments

As a result of regressive curve 2e12, most of those immediately voting will receive -33%. Generally, I've noticed curation rewards value being 50% to 200% . However now that it's doubled, I guess this means we will see well timed votes get massive curation rewards.
Also the window for voting at the wrong time is so small it is reduced to seconds.
Combined with SPS, this is now a ststem so blatently in favor of popular witnesses, whales and developers. No kidding they just agreed to all of it and more.

The maths behind getting everything right are now so complex, I imagine anyone behaving human is at such a huge disadvantage. We are going for a fairly simple efficiency equation to something that looks like an unfair question in a computer science class.

No one likes to miss out due to complexity. Under the previous way some who were more clever were able to figure it out and explain well to others how to emulate. Under the new system, the answer is going to be (pay and?) use this bot.

Wven if 100% of whales, allstar devs and top witnesses have best interests in mind and aren't selfish, I can see their enthusiasm and experience for this tech cloud their judgement and not realize the complexity of the changes now taking place.

Experts and enthusiasts are doing the testing (pr pretending they understand) and say it's all good. What about the non-experts?

Posted using Partiko Android

Well said! Everyone gushing about their 50% curation rewards and forgetting the negative impact of the pseudo-linear reward curve for low value posts - including the vast majority of upvoted comments.

A cut-off at 16 steem equates to a current price of about $6. How many comments get more than $6? How many posts?

Also notice that the proposed reward curve actually keeps rising beyond 0% - does this mean it isn't actually converging to a proportional curve? Linear and proportional are not the same thing.

Strange how the OP (steemitblog) claims not to have thought about this too deeply! jeez!

One also needs to put the whole EIP package together and combine the mathematical effects.As you say, it's complex but not unduly hard - I wrote about it this week.

Large upvotes will rake in more curation rewards and a higher amount of reward-payouts. Fantastic. And where are the hordes of newbies?

Steem is a financial blockchain - human social activity will take place on the platforms - hopefully some new tokenised platforms will have their own economics.

It's definitely going to change things a lot and SMTs will probably make Steem itself less relevant and more invisible. I wonder how it is going to affect the price. If Steem is much harder to get, it's going to become very rare and sooner or later only the platforms will have a lot. That's good for people who are planning to keep their Steem.
My only fear is the turmoil that will happen in between. Keep your Steem safe, lol.

It will only become rare(er) if there is more activity, meaning rshares activity - voting being the only rewarding function. So all these tokenised steemit clones that are still plugged into the Steem chain are beneficial - platforms that generate a lot of non-voting activity maybe less so (apart from a lot of buying/selling transfers).

So, yes, manage the tokens and the underlying STEEM :-)

I'm in support of this because it's just not natural to read a new post and then have to think about when you will vote on it in order to get some curation rewards. When there were not that many new posts, it was easy to find "new" posts that were still older than the vote window and show them some love. I think this change will make that easier and more fun to do again, incentivizing rewarding new content from new users.

With curation rewards going up, this becomes more of an issue. I helped create and update scripts like this to get around this issue in the past, but it really just adds more complexity, so I'm happy we're doing away with it and going down to only 1 minute.

Those in the comments here concerned about bots, know that we all are. The reality of this ecosystem is we have to protect what we value. That may include actually finding and downvoting attempts at gaming the system for disproportional gains and wealth extraction while upvoting posts which create value (and by that, I mean real value for the STEEM token, not just "good" content).

I'm in support of this because it's just not natural to read a new post and then have to think about when you will vote on it in order to get some curation rewards.

Is it not gratifying enough find, READ, consume, digest and enjoy good content without have to think in 'Curation Rewards' anymore?

Those in the comments here concerned about bots, know that we all are.

Yeah! @lukestokes. I suspect you should cast your vote in this quirky dPoll. };)

I think enjoying Steem via intrinsic motivations may be the only thing that really works well here for those willing to do it.

Polls which say things like "stop all the bots!" with no practical idea of how to actually do it do qualify as quirky. :)

Polls which say things like "stop all the bots!" with no practical idea of how to actually do it do qualify as quirky. :)

Well, perhaps if you click here and read my response to @carlgnash comment, you might know how quirky I may go Hahahaha.

Cheers!! :)

Well, around these days in which there is so much talk about attract new investors, recruit new developers, onboard new people, open new accounts and such in our ecosystem. I just had a ¿crazy? idea.

What about if the Stinc Devs simply code up and merge in the changes into the release candidate of the upcoming Hardfork 21 a simpler 'Curation' algorithm?

Hmm, well, I dunno... but, for example:

If they just forget everything about “vote windows” and shit. And just focus on add a piece of code where only resteeming a post allows Curation Rewards?

I mean, forget everyone who want to call themselves "Curators" of earning not even half shit from curation rewards by 'upvoting' a post in the first minute no matter how big their VP or SP is.

Anyone who'd want to extract from the public rewards pool a single dime and is expecting to get profits for their devoted Curation efforts. From now on, they will have to resteem a post!! Because only exerting your true role as a curator by executing a resteem would be the only way to have a ROI.

Yeah! correct, I admit it! There is no do$h available for authors either from a resteem. But who cares? Re-steeming means Curation.
You may always upvote the post after you have READ it completely from top to bottom to throw your two cents in the authors hat. ¿right?

Uhm, I just wonder how many new steem accounts would be instantly created and how many new 'peeps avatars' we would get to interact with the steem blockchain through their active Curator's re-steems if my 'crazy' proposal is heard & evaluated?

I bet that at least a few thousands new Alt accounts that will resteem "curate content" would be created. But yeah, no doubt they would be the same usual suspects with enough steem dough & high SP to claim them and pay for them.

Cheers!! :)

Rather curious that you make the point about witnesses with this decision versus the various others that have been quite controversial.

Why is there a vote window at all? What's the reasoning for one?

Because the curation-algorithm, with its difference-of-square-roots function, gives higher curation weights to very early upvotes and larger upvotes. This leads to an early scramble by algorithmic-voters to get the best curation-rewards. The window superimposed a negative linear curve so that voting after a few seconds meant losing much of what could have been gained from the curation-curve alone.

The two algos then created an interesting complexity within the first 15 minutes (previously 30 min) that will now be squeezed into 60 seconds. Thus the faster bots can still play the same game and the maximal rewards will probably be somewhere within 60 seconds. This is like the history of high frequency trading in futures. We shall see how it pans out.

How about 1 identified human, 1 account, no automatic algorithms? Human must do a captcha-like Turing test for each upvote, post, resteem, etc. I suspect this would bring Steem in line with what most users think it is/should be.

I think it's a good idea. People shouldn't have to play a little game just to figure out when they should upvote a post they like.

Seriously 1 minutes !😣

the day it can be figured out how to sense if a post has been 'read' rather than just 'seen' and that vote having more strength will be the day that bots racing to vote will go away.

Another platform I'm on does it. No idea how but my stats show views and reads.

What about having to open a post to vote it?

that's a good start

Would voting bots still work if that feature was implemented?

i suspect it would have a lot to do with how it is implemented. I'm not a developer. I just know it is being done on Medium where bots are not an issue. The main reason they aren't is no one really knows how the payouts are determined. With a transparent platform, the bots can adjust.

Good points.

The development sound good in a way to reward authors within first 15 minutes of posting. However, this could be abused by self votes. As such, I think there should be an exception for self voting.

My thoughts though.

Posted using Partiko Android

Steemit inc 2020: Hello Now the curve is 85/25.
Steemit inc 2021: Hello now we only give 100% steem power reward and you need to unstake it to use.

Save this message.

At this point, why not. it gives more chance to find a good gem under 1 minute.

Posted using Partiko Android

  ·  3 months ago Reveal Comment