You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Steem curation reward is needlessly unfair and how to fix it
I don't think it solves the voting problem entirely.
Looks like the proposed approach encourages people to vote on already popular contents rather than to look for new & good contents.
For example, if there is a post with already total_weight = 10 and rshares = 10 and reward = 100, when a new voter up-vote with 1 r_shares, she will get
weight = 1*0.5*10/10 = 0.5, sonew_total_weight = 10.5, andnew_total_rshares = 11, andnew_total_reward = 121, so the new voter will getreward = 121*0.5/10.5/2 ~= 2.9, which is much higher than voting on a new post (soreward = 1/2 = 0.5).
Above example is voting after a whale. Here is another example of voting after crowd:
total_weight = 10andrshares = 20andreward = 400, then a new voter up-vote with 1 rshare, so herweight = 1 * 0.5 * 10 / 20 = 0.25, sonew_total_weight = 10.25, andnew_total_rshares = 21, andnew_total_reward = 21*21 = 441, so the new voter will getreward = 441*0.25/10.25/2 ~= 5.4, which is even higher than above example.Above examples are based on using
rshares * rsharesas weight for reward distribution among posts. That said, if post A has2xofrsharesin comparison to post B, then total reward to post A is4xof reward to post B.While one's
weight%to a post is near linear to currentrsharesof the post if she votes late, the reward she can get is also near linear to currentrsharesof the post. That said, by adding a vote to post A the voter will get around2xreward in return in comparison to voting on post B.This is the reason why the algorithm described in OP encourages voting on already popular posts. If we want to encourage people to find new quality post, it's likely we need to make the weight for reward distribution among posts linear to current
rsharesor less.can you not add to the equations "time weight"?
What's "time weight"?
I mean add a time depended variable that will favour new posts over old posts...
if it's a new post multiply the reward results from @killerstorm by 1
and for older post by < 1 (time weighted)... Sorry for the inability to express it better.
I understand now. It's probably a solution, but 1. we need to find a good curve for the time weight, 2. "new" content doesn't always mean a post made later, sometime it means a post got ignored by mass.