You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Downvote Pool Deep Dive
Except that the Whale experiment was an overwhelming success.. But what do I know, I only witnessed the crowd chher it on and it was completely about money.
Posted using Partiko Android
The whale experiment was completely different. It was 2 whales capping influence at X vests. Any vote that was cast that was higher than that amount was countered (negated) with a downvote. It had nothing to do with quality. It was simply removing the largest votes so everyone else's votes had more influence.
The Whale Experiment was directly in response to the Crowd who demanded vociferously one singular fundamental change in the much anticipated hardfork at that point. I know exactly what it was, and it wasn't just two whales, FTG and Abit and Smooth and I'm missing a couple more all joined, along with all the Whales like Ned and Dan that Stopped voting, and my point was that wisdom of the crowd isn't inherently wrong or mistaken, especially in that instance. The platform was buzzing with activity like it hasn't buzzed since or before, there has still not been any more successful experiment that drove engagement and brought more traffic to the platform. Don't try to marginalize it to the efforts of the two people that began it and sacrificed most to maintain it, it was the response the community had that also played a large role in it, and like I said the participants included not only the people who Downvoted but the people who Refrained from voting. Yeah, Flagging is enormously beneficial to the health and integrity of the platform and I'll keep reminding you forgetful lot that thinks the very very worst of everyone else. Give everyone else more tools to police themselves and they will surely turn to raging trolls. Nonsense.
The whale experiment you refer to achieved exactly the purpose of the Huey Long algorithm I have proposed: limiting the profiteering potential of perverting curation via financial manipulation.
The only differences were that the algorithm was different, and it wasn't cast in code, but done by altruists. It didn't last because it wasn't cast in code as the Huey Long algorithm would be. No downvotes would be necessary from the Huey Long algorithm to achieve the same purpose.
There's limiting the amount of rewards a post can earn, and then there's limiting how much one vote draws from the reward pool, not the same thing and it has been pointed out before that people will simply overcome those limits either by splitting the stake up or by making more shit posts. Interesting is the fact that you abandoned the conversation where you initially brought up your suggestions and are trying to claim that "no, really guys, it would work".
Posted using Partiko Android
BTW, it was only a matter of time until the whales that did not agree would have tried, and probably succeeded, in splitting their stake up and not been noticed, which woukd have been completely in line with the then just released linear rewards. Like I pointed out initially to your suggestion, the limits only act (emphasize ONLY) to encourage such splitting / hiding behavior, why would you expect anything less? As such, it makes it harder to detect abuse and the milking, and it hinders the overall gaming aspect of it, the luck aspect, which is what happens when one post receives an overwhelming support, something you think ought not to happen and a burden that I think ought not to happen since the potential for earning such rewards would bring people to the platform, which if you have it your way, would never happen.
Posted using Partiko Android