RE: Make tipu game mechanics/ theory even better!
@tipu cancel curation self-voting
:D :D
You make some valid points. For me the gamification will end up dividing the curators in 3 categories :
- Circle-voters. People will vote first with Tipu, then with their circle-voting accounts, getting high curation rewards for Tipu but allowing them to fuel further their voting circle with Tipu's SP.
- Maximizers. People who blindly upvote content to maximize returns. They will also get a big part of Tipu's SP, allowing them to earn money from curation without having any proprietary SP.
- Genuine curators : These will never have access to Tipu's SP as the two categories above will get all of Tipu's SP.
If you start to have moderation, "star" curators, etc... you just end up with a curation bot like ocdb or appreciator / rocky1, smartsteem, etc... It's good too, but tipu has always been innovative, shouldn't stop now.
My opinion would be that you won't find a system that suits and optimizes resources with all these different categories out there.
For the
- Circle-voters : Just ban them. You analyze the curator's CSI and the votes coming after the curator's CSI. This way, if CSI are low in both cases, you know you have a circle-voter and auto-ban him.
- You create a real curation system for optimization (let's not forget tipu runs thanks to the delegators who except a ROI on their delegated SP) : you pay the curators to optimize tipu's voting. You allocate to them 50% of tipu's VP. Let's call this the OO (optimized operation).
- You create a gamified league, not revolving around getting liquid rewards but just getting more curation possibilities : essentially what the system is currently., but with having excluded the two above categories. You allocate 50% to Tipu's VP here. Let's call this GO (gamified operation).
You also need to make sure there's a turnover for the GO (OO being based on pure optimization, you can let the "free market" do its job), but this system can not be based on optimizing or it will defeat the purpose. Maybe base it on CSI (diversification of votes) or another unit of measurement.
This way you got the OO part that allow tipu to continue reward its delegators with a correct APR and the GO part that benefits all of the Steem ecosystem (allowing people to taste what it's like to have a bit of SP, as you said, it might incentize a lot of people to power up).
So for me, the OO part can be done pretty easily as it's all mathematical.
The GO part is the one that needs a lot of thought, as if you base it on curation rewards, you'll only duplicate the OO, but to be really interesting, you need to find an incentive for content discovery (how to measure that ?) but also allow a correct turnover of curators (so that a lot of people can try it out).
Thank you for the feedback, a lot to process :)
At the end of the day I just want good authors that create valuable content to be rewarded, even if it's done by voting circles. Probably what we should focus on is to also reward awesome authors that haven't been noticed yet - so they don't leave discouraged but rather stay on STEEM and tell their friends how cool it is :)
Hi @cardboard I am a very active curator (cofounder of @c-squared / @c-cubed curation group) and would love to participate in your project as a curator. Would be great to be able to give an extra boost to those really awesome posts I find and should be a good bost for tipu as well as a ton of big votes often end up coming along behind my curation.
RE the discussion above about how incentivize the behavior you want from your curators:
I think you can find a middle ground between outright banning curators who only curate the same circle (jerk), and not taking into account diversity of curation in the reward at all. Something common sense might be generate a curator score from (as first ideas): diversity of authors curated (higher score = less likely to be repeat authors curated over and over); avg. author payout of curated authors (higher score for curating lower rewarded authors); curation reward generated for tipu from curation (which could still be a metric that circle-jerky type curators / curators who curate higher paid authors do well at); curator CSI (giving higher scores for people who are less circle jerky in their overall voting behavior). Then order curators by their combined score (weighted however makes sense) and scale the payout accordingly. Circle jerky curators who curate good content (but from a small / well rewarded circle) would fall toward the back third, so they could keep on participating but just not receive as much reward as those who are actually out there actively curating for new content and spreading their vote around.
I am sure you are already thinking of ways to do quality control checks on curators, one easy of course would be to order curators by total negative rshares (flags) received by posts they curate and starting your quality control checks there.
Thank you very much for the feedback, I bookmarked the post to get back it when I will be working on those systems - I like the idea of weighted score :) And of course @tipu nominate
thanks mate :)
Hi @carlgnash! @cardboard has nominated you to become a @tipU curator! You can now request 3 @tipU upvotes per day on any content you like. The better curation reward you can get, the more upvotes with higher value you can send. You can nominate new curators as well!
To send the upvote, please comment under the post and at the end of the comment, add: @tipu curate. To nominate someone else you think would make a good @tipU curator, reply to one of their posts or comments with: @tipu nominate. All of this is of course free :)
Check out https://tipu.online/curator?carlgnash for more information and to see your stats :). Have fun!
Yeah, all the difficulty will be in finding a middle ground between optimizing curation rewards and discovering new content.
Don't want to be pessimistic, but from my point of view, they're incompatible.
For example, when OCD discovers new content, it in fact only profits to anomadsoul, which front-runs the votes from ocd, ocd-witness and ocdb with his "triggering" account cameraman.
The only other people making curation rewards from content "discovered" (upvoted) by OCDB are "lucky voters" who casted their votes before, or insiders (I don't know how they work really, but I suppose the person who suggested the post). In fact I suppose most of those "lucky voters" are in fact the "insiders" or at least partly.
Sure, the vote from tipu (around 1$) might give the post some spotlight and trigger votes after it (if it arrives in the hot section for example), but I wouldn't overestimate that effect.
For me you said it all here
If you want good return on curation rewards, you will need to study the voting circles and vote at the right time, or front-run all the tipu votes with your cardboard account (in that case, you'll become a great performing curator, like anomadsoul is :D )
If you don't care about curation rewards, you can start "discovering content"
As Tipu is a business with delegators behind, that's why I would separate both activities which, are, as I said, in my opinion incompatible :
Cuz of that paradoxon, I've written this post.
You already stated that you don't support reviewers (or do you?)
I do cuz I think working in this direction is also working in the direction of a real DAO ;)
@ocdb or @curangel are not really decentralized.