You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Your vote, squared: not everyone's vote is equal - insight into quadratic voting and why there wasn't linear rewards in the first place
Please execute the people that implemented exponential influence :)
How the fuck could anyone have the balls to give someone with 10 times more money, 100 times more influence, REALLY? It should literally be the other way around, someone with 100x more money should only have 10 times more influence. And even that is insanely high in it's current implementation because curation quality is completely ignored. A person with 10 times more SP should also be 10 times more critical and should be penalized 10 times as hard for making curation mistakes.
???
Did you read my blog? The linked academic papers?
The point is exactly that, to give those who care deeply (and thus willing to spend more) more influence than those who do not care as much. The extra money spent by the people who care more is redistributed to all shareholders.
Steem is operating far from equilibrium but my following still apply. The whole point of steem is those stakeholders who have lots "skin in the game" get more say. Curation quality is not ignored, there are curation rewards for a reason.
"Curation mistakes" maybe to you but everyone is able to exercise their stake how they see fit. There is not really such thing as a curation mistake.
It was a great thought, but it doesn't seem to work on SteemIt. People are almost completely dependent on these heavy investors. Unfortunately HF19 isn't going to change much i'm afraid, but we'll see.
The fact that those large stakeholders have so much influence is problematic, they should be able to profit another way or additional algorithms have to be implemented to make it more fair. It's a hard problem, but i'm sure they're working on it.
Curation quality is almost completely ignored because the algorithms aren't functioning properly. Sometimes you can earn more curation rewards by voting on worse content than when you vote on fantastic content. Ideally it should be a self regulating system where curators could profit from fixing injustice instead of profiting from contributing to the injustice.
With curation mistake i essentially mean you voted differently than the average consensus. For example when you voted on a post that receives flags, you should get penalized slightly for voting on something that is rated as less than "perfect" content. Or when you end up being the only upvoter against 9 flags you should get penalized heavily (more than just losing out on curation rewards). The system needs an extra variable similar to reputation (but then actually significant haha).
Well there are curation mistakes when you would be talking about executing an optimal probabilistic strategy to maximize profits ;)
Well HF19 was sure a change.
Large stakeholders are going to be a part of any system. Nothing problematic directly.
Again, as far as steem is concerned - there is no curation mistakes. That is by design.
Sure hot and trending suck. But that has less to do with curation quality but the lack of quality content as a whole.
That can't work since people will split their stake. If 100x more money gives 10x more influence then you split it into 100 pieces and have 100x influence instead. The flattest we can go is linear. I agree that quadratic was nutty though
Ah good point, but my statement was just to make a point anyway ;)
BTW, are you stalking me now? haha