Curation Bot’s - Race to the Bottom - How it will Begin to Hurt Authors on ‘The List’..
There are many users on Steemit who get frustrated at the sight of the same authors on the Trending List, day in, day out. Well, I think I have good reason to believe this won’t last. This post is going to explore the reasoning behind my belief, and predict what the future holds for the Curation Author List.
I feel it’s probably diligent for me to explain what I mean by the Race to the Bottom. Some of the following content comes from a previous post of mine (posted a few weeks ago), feel free to skip this, if you have read the original (skip to: Authors on ‘The List’ - Enjoy your success while it lasts…);
Curation Bots are at war. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch. For some time some Curation Bot's have been making spectacular returns, but that is about to come to an end.
The Original Curation Rewards Algorithm:
It was simple, the Earlier you vote, the higher the share of the Curation Rewards you received (it was still relative to your Voting Power just like today). This lead to some very successful Bot's instantly up-voting (a split second after posting) any content with certain tags, or by certain authors. Curation was simply a race to vote first.
The Curation Rewards Algorithm Today:
The Algorithm is just like before, however with the addition of a 30 minute window where, the earlier you vote, the higher the proportion of your curation reward goes to the Author. So, if you vote 1 second after a post (is posted) you will synthetically be giving ~99% of you curation reward to the author. This changes on a 'sliding scale' until, If you vote 1 second before the end of the 30 minute window, you will give the author ~1% of your Curation Rewards.
This Complicated Things.. Which was the point..
So, what time do the Bot's coders set their vote to come in.. 5mins? 10mins? 15mins? 20mins? 25mins? 30mins? There is a trade off whatever time they opt for. Too late, gives other users the time to up-vote before the Bot, and take more of the curation rewards. Too early, and the bot will be giving away too much of their curation reward to the Author. This was the aim of the developers, to even the playing field and give human users a chance against the bot’s.
Well, this is where Game Theory comes into play.
Let's talk about Steemit's favourite Bot.
@wang is the original bot. But, he is hitting some problems, and unless he evolves, these problems won’t go away. @wang is very successful, and kudos to the owner of that account. They seen a big opportunity, and first mover advantage ensured they were compensated for their work.
When the Curation Algorithm changes came through, @wang set his vote to 15mins. Giving up 50% of the Cuartion Rewards, but still getting in nice and early.
Unfortunately for @wang, his success will be his downfall. This is the killer for every successful bot on Steemit. The Steemit Blockchain provides complete transparency to a users actions. So, some other clever users are sat there watching @wang making up to 900 Steem per day, and thought, "I want a bit of that..."
So, they set up a bot to 'front run' @wang (vote just before @wang). They looked at who or what @wang was voting on, and set their bot to vote at 14mins. Over time, the number of users engaging in this activity increased, and @wang Curation Reward begins to fall. So he Drops to 13mins. And so, the cycle begins once more, @wang has gone from 15mins to 9mins over the last few weeks...This means that @wang is currently giving away over 70% of his curation rewards to Authors;
9mins/30mins = 0.166666
1-0.3 = 70%
Where does this end?
I've been a futures trader from 8 years, and I've had to change my trading strategy too many times to count. I’ve gone through 12month period of following a strategy which makes consistent money, but then, more users start to follow your lead, and eventually the ‘Edge’ is gone. The money disappears, and you have to change your trading strategy to continue to make money. There is a term;
Adapt or Die
This fit's the upcoming Curation shift nicely. If there is one thing I know about, it’s the life cycle of a market inefficiency. Here is how it goes. I see the Steemit Curation very similar to trading a Financial Market. There is money to be made by identifying inefficiencies (a post that should have more up-votes), however, it’s currently too easy. There is only a finite pool of funds that can go to this type of Curation Behaviour, and as number of users following the same strategy increases, the rewards for each user will tend to zero over time…
A Fast Buck Never Lasts
Now, this brings me onto further thoughts on this topic, and the impact this type of behaviour will have on the lucky Authors on the list.
Authors on ‘The List’ - Enjoy the success while it lasts…
Users who are lucky enough to be on the Curation Authors List, receive an upvote from certain bots, regardless of the content of they post. This has lead to many user feeling frustrated by the curation reward system.
The key point that has come to light for myself, is that, the curation ‘Race to the Bottom’ is only beneficial to Authors in the short term.
How are Authors Benefiting?
Bot’s are voting on content earlier and earlier. Asides from the Author rewards they receive from up-votes, authors are receiving a bigger percentage of the curation rewards. Some authors are receiving 80%+ of the Curation Rewards ‘Pot’. This is obviously great new for the authors, however I don’t believe this will last..
Why will this Diminish?
As curators returns continue to fall due to the ’Race to the Bottom’, it will get to a point where certain author are not worth losing Voting Power over. Curators will simply see value somewhere else, and move their votes accordingly. I believe this is already happening to a number of high profile authors, and I believe we will see this cycle repeated time and time again moving forward into the future. I would call it;
Steemit Author-Curation Boom and Bust
This is one of the prime reasons I would advised any frustrated Content Creators to keep going. Opportunities will arrise, there will be a changing of the guard, and if your in the right place at the right time, creating great content, you could be the beneficiary of this phenomena.
Thank you for reading, and as always I am interested to hear your thoughts. My post frequency will be falling to a reasonable level from here on out. I've had a little too much time on my hands over the past few days...
Dont forget about the manual curator who is at war with the bots. I battle everyday to take back a percentage of what the bots take from the community. I do this 17 hours a day..non-stop!
Great post olllie!
One of the best curators on the site. Have you noticed the bot swarm that follows your votes? :P
#streemian
thank you for the kind words. yes, quite a few of them.
we have a very dedicated team working with RHW. they do a tremendous job.
17 hours a day... * gasp * now that's dedication! How do you manage to keep up that level of intensity without getting burnt out?
its tough at times..then i recharge my batteries. lol
always keep in mind this is our community, we should try to contribute in anyway we can.
I think that users need to realise how hard people like yourself are working. I know there are a number of other users who seem to be online on steemit.chat 24/7. It's easy to think that certain users who are getting all the rewards are working for 1 hour a day. I know that is not the case...
Maybe you can put the bot creators out of business? I'm really sick of seeing the same authors - with multiple posts each - sitting in the top-15 on the trending page every day. It makes a mockery of the curating system, especially considering the quality of most of those posts.
Maybe you can put me on your manual curating list? I'm biased, but I think my posts are much better. If enough eyeballs see them, the other bots and whales won't matter. And I'll be happy just knowing that actual readers are seeing my posts.
I don't forget you guys @instructor2121 I know that you in particular work very hard on Steemit Curation. The great thing for you is, these bot's are not so intelligent just yet. You can adapt quicker, and you can read ;) Keep up the good work!!
Amazing work with the curation, keep it up +11111
This statement is incorrect; their is no such thing as The Curation Authors List. What you have is certain whales have built up individual preferred author lists.
Each one of those has a different criteria for what they vote and how they vote for it. So for instance; Wang used to vote for me; and now doesn't, because of what you mention above.
However, there are some whales who vote for some of my content over other types, this is because they have a personal preference for some of my content and don't rate the other stuff so much.
Which brings me onto my next point; you're assuming that every single bot out there is voting purely for profit. This is dangerously short-sighted thinking, you have to remember that some of these bots belong to people with millions of dollars in their Steemit wallets.
If this system is a success, they will get to cash out those millions of dollars; if it isn't, they won't.
Therefore, there are whales out there, who are trying to vote up the best content, and don't care about the peanuts they could make in comparisson by voting (peanuts to them of course).
So whilst your prediction may be right for some of the bots with a financial motivation; there are still people who are just looking to vote up quality, as this will see them realise their huge stake.
I have upvoted this post even though I don't agree in total, because you have a great delivery style and good analytical mind; and we need people like you :-)
Cg
Hello @cryptogee Thanks for your post. I certainly didn't make clear the fact that, users curate their own Author List, I was talking in general terms ('the list'), so thank you for clearing that up.
Your point is valid that not all bots are voting for profit. I personally think the majority are, however it is right to point this out. I think this will get more acute when/if delegated voting gets implemented. Users in it for the good of Steemit will delegate their voting rather than have a Bot IMO...
I have upvoted you for the same reason, however I agree with your post. I have certainly generalised these accounts into a single motivation group, for the purposes of my hypothesis. However I believe in the hypothesis regardless of the existence of Nobel Bot's.
I also don't think Bot's are bad. I'm exciting to see the evolution of the bots. They could be a very valuable indexing tool for Steemit moving forward.. They will improve and get more intelligent. Users will benefit because bots are not emotional. We will hopefully see a day in the future when bot's push the best content to the top of the trending list, and create a true meritocracy.
Idealistic I know. But we can all dream :)
An interesting parallel lies in a view of stock market trading:
The similarity to Steemit lies in the tactics of curating; the behavior that you describe so well in your post is similar to technical trading. Curators who search out new authors of quality, or seek to find a "hidden gem" of a post are taking an approach more in line with the fundamentals trading concept.
I'm not going to argue that one strategy is better than the other. For my own part, I did well in the stock market by using both approaches. I bought undervalued stock, and traded in options.
However, there was underlying value to be had on the market, and undervalued companies could make profit without being traded on the market.
On the Steemit platform, new users who are unrecognized are going to quit taking part in and building value for the Steemit "market".
I would suggest Steemit investors that want to maintain the long term value of the platform diversify their curating approach, and spend some time digging up new content in addition to chasing the trending dragon.
Ansd since I haven't said this yet, well-written!
@stevescoins Great post. Something which i have touched on in the past, but not presented as eloquently as yourself.
Thank you! Feel free to re-use the analogy; it is the idea that counts, and ideas are better when coming from trusted speakers...according to most folks ;)
I might well do a post along those lines in the future. If you could DM me on chat so I have a dialog open, I will get in touch if/when I decide to do so, and we can bounce some idea's back a forward...
I'll do that; I haven't looked at the chat side yet, so it may be a while...
I agree, the curation market is entirely a trading market.
@wingz, your last blog on building Steemit value fits well with ollie's discussion and my comment
We are both Oil traders (@wingz and myself), that's probably why we are so in line with your thinking ;)
Thanks @stevescoins
I agree and disagree. Curation rewards for these authors is already way down. They won't continue to get the support from bots and other consistent voters they've been getting.
But I still think they will continue to be on trending, because they actually have readers and followers who like them and vote for them. All these curator bot operators aren't stupid, they continued to support these authors because the trailing votes (from readers) continued to come in and pump up the curation rewards. That won't change just because the curation rewards for the bot operators go away.
My next prediciton is that people will continue to whine and bitch about the same generally- talented authors (including yourself btw) succeeding because, well, that's how people are.
I also agree with @cryptogee that much of the author-list voting is not all curation-rewards motivated. 100% of the authors I consistently support are authors that I believe bring content to the site that adds value. Curation rewards are a bonus on top of that, but as he said, it wouldn't make sense of me to vote for something I believe to be harmful to the platform just for rewards
Hello @smooth That all makes perfect sense. Thanks for your post
Where there is quality, up-votes will come. I think that is point well worth making, especially from yourself and many other users trawling through 000's of posts per day. It's will be interesting to see the rate of organic change we see in Author Rewards.
There are certainly going to be new users coming along who will 'redesign the wheel' (so to speak) on Quality Content on Steemit. This will be the ultimate test of how fair the Curation Rewards are. NOT someone coming along attempting to 'copy' successful authors...
Hi @smooth - I'm curious your thoughts on this (if you have time) :)
Human vs. Bot Curators - Introducing Human Competition into the Equation - Allow Whales to Delegate Curation Power to Dolphins and Minnows
@hisnameisolllie
I think you are highlighting a real issue here.
Let's not stop making our voices heard and let's try to make it so that a future version of steemit doesn't go through these extremes the same way.
Hello @the-ego-is-you I don't think it is all bad. I like the idea that there will be a 'changing of the guard', and new up and coming talent will replace 'us' dinosaurs who have been posting on Steemit from the get go. Anything that will improve the user experience (quality and diversity of content) on Steemit, I'm all for...
I do as well. I just think the whole "boom-bust" behaviour (which is similar to how pump-and-dumps work) isn't a great feature, even though the "market" itself is obviously a good thing.
Can't argue with that @the-ego-is-you
@dantheman is your greatest supporter in terms of rewards you received in the last 4 weeks and there is a lot to be proud. (http://steemvp.com/)
Many people are rewarded by what you are sharing.
Every Steemians would greatly benefit from reading you.
Thank you @hisnameisolllie!
Thanks @teamsteem I, along with many other can certainly do more though. I don't Curate and spend all my time Creating content and engaging with comments. I would be the first one to delegate my voting power to a (or a group of) Great Curators supporting new talented Authors if that option ever arrives... I believe it is on the agenda...
I think you are right about the new 5 upvotes per day criteria in the upcoming Hard Fork and the 30 minute rule will start to spread out the author rewards on SteemIt. It make take a bit of time, but in the long run the SteemIt developers are tilting toward humans over bots.
As the author rewards spread to quality content to more authors that are not always on the trending list, the success of SteemIt and STEEM will blossom.
Thank you for your post and thoughtful insights,
Steem on,
Mike
That's the dream @etcmike I like to think the changes being made are with the intentions of getting to your utopian end... I look forward to seeing how all this unfolds...
In my humble opinion, I think bots will keep winning out because an organic creator and curator like me cannot compete with 24/7 automation. That being said, I think I've already taken myself out of the 'race to the bottom' because I vote with my heart and mind, generally leaving comments on the way - and my results, while modest, are getting better on all fronts :)
That's what I like to hear @merej99 :)
This is certainly encouraging for the authors who are not on "the list". However, I am sure that as long as there is money involved the bot makers will find ways to get around whatever measures are put in place.
It will take more that your encouragement to make up for what is happening in terms of the voting system.
For example, it is a very simple task for bots to diversity subjects in order to make it appear that the subject contents are diversifying and to introduce "new" user bots which then leaves real authors and potential good content with no possible path to realize the promise of Steemit.
You are doing an excellent job of providing some measure of accurate information regarding why the platform works the way it does.
Unless Steemit starts allowing "good content" to participate in the financial rewards that are constantly visible, I see no real incentive for authors to put forth the energy and time required to produce excellent content.
I do see some reasonably good content getting some financial traction, however, it is a very small percentage.
This is not surprising since if one looks at the world outside Steemit you see that excellence and quality are not what generates the most financial rewards. So it is not reasonable to expect the Steemit platform to not be reflective of the world in general.
It is totally natural that as the number of users on the platform ramps there will be more financial rewards going to high quality content.
The difficult issue to resolve would be how would you provide enough incentive for individuals to generate exceptional quality content.
The good news for Steemit is that no other currently available functioning social media platform provides any direct financial incentive for high quality content.
If serious effort is put towards creating alternatives within the Steemit to attract and reward exceptionally good content, the platform would benefit greatly from its first mover advantage.
I cannot see that happening using the current voting algorithms because high quality content outside the platform requires special attention and infrastructures to maintain its support and existence.
Popularity driven systems will always put the greatest attention and rewards in the hands of content that meets the "lowest common denominator" in terms of quality.
We have "human" curators who mean well and are devoting time and great effort to address the content issue but they are no match for well programmed bots.
Your efforts needs to be matched by very clever programming that puts some real leverage in the hands to of human curators.
Just my humble opinions!!
@roland.haynes Good post. Thank you for sharing
First of all, you are right. A true meritocracy is impossible to create, especially when rewarding users for subjective content. The thing is, many users might just like the content on the trending list, the same content that other users thinks is rubbish.
With regards to your point;
I believe that these bot's are not so clever, and they will begin to find it difficult to compete with a coordinated human effort. It's too easy to set a bot up, and copy or front run other successful bots. This race to the bottom will only hurt bots. Humans can adapt quicker, and they can READ. I don't believe that we will have a AI Bot that will be able to deduce the quality of a post anytime soon.
I agree with you on your point about coordinated human efforts. If we can get enough people coordinated reading, curating, and creating content we could offset the bots. The sooner the better.
Your posts are helping to raise awareness and I find that to be encouraging.
I'm glad I took a few minutes out of my day to check steemit today and stumbled on this post. I started to lose interest in steemit last week when my last few posts were not receiving any attention. (I was posting 5 to 10 times a week) I worked hard on my blog only to get some of my best work make less than a dollar and other posts over $100 or more.
My story is common, I know. But the excitement I had when I first joined steemit has gone and I no longer have the desire to waste hours working on a post that gets unnoticed. Who wants to play the "will I get upvotes lottery??" Not me.. Not anymore.
But thank you for posting this article, because it gives me hope that steemit will improve and could still have a future. So I will check back every now and again. But for right now, i'll fade onto the inactive user list, because I plain gave up.
Luc
I do believe persistence will pay off. Many successful Authors have been on the Steemit Platform from the get go, and thus have a massive head start on new users. This advantage won't last for a number of reason (one of which I have covered above). Keep up the good work @quickfingersluc