You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Making Steemit Better: A Proposal to Flatten the Rewards Curve
I agree with the need for change - the concept makes sense and because of the way you used charts more people can understand - well done on creating a clear post.
I like the way the curve applies a single mathematics formula to fixing the self-voting challenge. What this does is allow one to self-vote after the initial penalty has decayed.
This curve does not fix the self voting issue. It reduces payouts across the board. All payouts that earned very little already are reduced even more with this curve. It doesn't make the distinction between grandma's travel post or someone who would abuse the system.
It reminds me of the government wanting to ban encryption because a few terrorists use it ( as if it's going to discourage them) Here we have this curve trying to 'ban' everyone's post because a few self voters might abuse the system ( which I might add are going to self vote regardless of any curve).
You want to stop self voting content ? Downvote it. Simple.
Why only flatten shape of the curve? Just remove it altogether, it serves no purpose.
I'm wondering if you're missing the meaning of the curve. The curve shows how a post's reward is calculated as a function of how much stake is voting for it. It does not show an account's voting strength as a function of its stake.
What the linear curve would do is redistribute rewards from highly-voted posts to less-highly-voted posts. I don't think it would have much impact on low-voted posts (I could be wrong, I haven't run the numbers). It would just require a little more stake for a post to get off the ground, so to speak.
Define highly-voted posts please
Top 15 trending.
I know that it is stake weighted but how does this feature discourage self voting? Someone with a large stake will just upvote himself and even benefit from the curve since he has a lot of stake.
Sorry I'm late to answer this, and maybe someone else has already done so. The point is to discourage self-voting for garbage posts. If a post is worth something, of course it should be self-voted.
But if the post is garbage, the philosophy is to make sure that if the author is the only voter that he will have wasted his vote. Thus, you want the author reward curve to be steeper on the right than on the left. The way it's done in the current implementation is that at the far left (when the post hasn't received any votes yet), the curve is a straight upward-sloping line; after about 400 Mvests are voting for it, the curve starts to bend upwards.
The proposal in this post is to make the curve start out completely flat and gradually bend upwards until it's a straight line. Both discourage self-voting in the same way: they make sure that a post needs a little "oomph" to get off the ground, so to speak.
A post with little weight on it doesn't make it garbage.
The calculation is based on voting weight , it doesn't calculate how many vote were on a post, it calculates the weight.
Someone who want to upvote himself is going to upvote regardless of any oomph. This feature doesn't discourage selfvoting at all, it actually encourages people to buy more steem power to self vote themselves.
I don't get it. If you're going to ignore my explanation why ask for it in the first place?
Your explanation of how the curve work is spot on, but this doesn't discourage self voting. It makes self voting less profitable for low SP account and more profitable for large SP account but doesn't discourage anyone .
It doesn't show it directly, but indirectly there is a similar effect because the most powerful accounts always "live" on the right side of the curve (they themselves can put a post there, so the only question becomes how far out to the right it goes) and the least powerful move between the right and left depending on the actions of the most powerful (in a sense this could be viewed as another way the most powerful have even more power).
Flattening the curve on posts flattens the power imbalance between accounts as one of its effects (or at least no longer amplifies it)
No theyre not. Vshares aren't porportional to payout except as a percentage of total vshares assigned.
as an example, imagine two posts. One post has 1MV of SP voting for it. The other, 100MV of SP lets assume that 1MV = 3 rshares, and and 100MV = 300 rshares.
Under the current system, the first post would get 3^2=9 vshares and the second post would get 300^2=90000 Vshares.. As a result, the second post would be paid 10000x more than the first post.
Now lets look at the modified system. Its dependent on the threshold, but lets take the n^2/n-1 idea that steemit, inc came up with (because i think its a better formula)
Under that system, yes, youre correct, the absolute number of vshares on the 3rshares post would be less. it would go from 9 to 5.5. But the second post, the one with 300 rshares would go down even more (from 90,000 to 909). As a result, the first post would get just under 1% of the reward pool, and the second post would get just over 99% (which is pretty close to linear, where it would be exactly 1% and 99%).
Note that, like others, i think this threshold is far too high. (though, tbh i like the one proposed by steemit inc)
Its not really possible to "reduce payout accross the board" (without changing the composition of the reward pool) because, regardless of the number of Vshares assigned, there is still the same amount of money being distributed.
The number of Vshares a post gets doesn't really matter. Its the percentage it gets of all vshares.
The entire rewards pool is awarded every day. So, there is no way, it reduces payouts across the board. It just might change who the winners are, or how much they win.
The curve gives voters with a large amount of steem power a disproportionate amount of voting power. When these users upvote content all content on the platform gets reduced. So it does effectively reduce payout across the board, except for a few lucky ones!
lol, I think you are describing what is happening now.