RE: How To Fix Steemit For Communities & Viral Engagement
You can just give a vote to anyone verified and let them run free with those votes. One person / one vote / system working as intended (and free of "inequalities" or sybil-attack).
Perhaps you didn't read carefully the linked blogs at the top of my blog or just missed it because there is so much to read, because it was already explained therein that one-user-one-vote (i.e. a linear weighting of vote totals for rewards) means everyone can vote for themselves as the maximum profit strategy and thus no curation happens at all.
The current voting algorithm is the square of the weighted vote totals. And this is to make sure people have to vote for posts that others also like. And rewarding (for curation rewards) the earliness of voting is so users don't get the same curation reward for just piling on the most voted posts late.
The huge difficulty is on the verification side (easier said than done) plus not all people want to be verified.
The community is already enforcing verification in #introduceyourself. And those who don't want to be verified, won't get higher voting power (same as it is now). Perhaps you are thinking that the bad actors can get verified (or buy accounts) and the unverified minnions will fall further down in voting power? Well if they are that unmotivated, maybe nothing is going to work.
I would argue that there is a greater value proposition in even allowing anonymous posters to enrich the platform with their content
That can also be a negative and chase away the masses, because they will run away if there is crime on Steemit. The anonymous posters can still post to the Steem database. Nothing stopping them from posting. We are just talking about rankings (that are optional for any UI to adopt).
I'm not really a fan of verification to be honest for multiple reasons
This is a social network, not Bitcoin.
Somewhat. Mostly it filters out the weakest/cheapest frauds. And the vast majority of the users haven't ever done that (I think at this point the majority doesn't even post introductions at all, and many introductions are lost in the noise). Verification, in general, is an onboarding killer. Even for #intoduceyourself posts earning thousands of dollars there have been debates whether being "too strict" on verification is being too hostile to new users.
@alexgr:
That is what the square weighting does. Linear weighting won't. You are making a non-point. Linear weight by definition means you can profit most by voting for yourself. If you tweak it, it is no longer one-user-one-vote.
Voting yourself can be rectified through relatively easy tweaks (making it unprofitable compared to voting others) so I wouldn't be too worried about that.
@smooth:
Agreed.
I'm not diminishing your point, but I do want to note that if the users can choose to verify later at their time of choosing, it doesn't kill onboarding. Yet the new problem becomes why are they motivated to verify then if there is no urgency?
Btw, I had already thought of this. I will be making a new top-level comment soon to explain the disadvantages of my proposal discussed already and why I already know that we really can't fix Steem for as long as the model is voting to distribute from a pool of debasement.