# Brief Explanation and Discussion about New Reward SystemsteemCreated with Sketch.

in steem •  last year

Today, the devs commited two changes. First one is renewed reward calculation based on linearity. And another is applying this reward curve to all reward system. This is great news because many of us have been requesting more flattened curve for fairness. I first appreciate the devs' hard work and their passions for Steem.

## Details of Change

Technically, the new curve is calculated as `(r^2 + 2*a*r)/(r + 40*a)`. `r` denotes sum of Steem Power denominated in `MVESTS` that is given to a post, and `a` is constant `55`. Seems quite difficult... but I can show how it works.

The graphs has X axis of received MVESTS and Y axis of effective MVESTS. The bottom graph is a zoom-in of 0~5000 MVESTS range. In the perfect linear system, if I cast 1,000 MVEST, my vote is equavalent as 1,000 MVESTS reward shares (Currently, 10,000 MVESTS post gets around \$20). But in the modified linear system, 1,000 MVESTS end up with 344 MVESTS because of anti-abusing (self-voting or collusive voting) discount. Then how much voting power is needed to have less penalty?

The below graph with four lines presents voting efficiecy at given MVESTS. Perfect linear system always has 100% because 1 MVESTS always effects as 1 MVESTS. Amont them, Currently commited setting is blue bold line, which has denominator of `(r + 40*a)`. Green line uses 10 instead of 40, and light green uses 20. Meanwhile red uses 80. These numbers change voting efficiency along with MVESTS, and higher values mean stronger anti-abusing penalties.

With the commited value of 40, if a post got voted by 4,600 MVESTS, the next 1 MV vote has about 0.9 MV power. But with the value of 80, 9,400 MV is required. Meanwhile, with the value of 10, a post only needs 1,000 MV to give +90% efficiency to following voters. The below table shows required MV to reach 80%, 90%, 95%, and 99% efficiency.

Parameter\Efficiency80%90%95%99%
10*a560 MV1015 MV1660 MV4300 MV
20*a1250 MV2200 MV3585 MV9180 MV
40*a2620 MV4615 MV7420 MV18920 MV
80*a5360 MV9410 MV15090 MV40000 MV

## Discussion

A higher anti-abusing power sounds good. But it has pros and cons.

### Pros

1. Higher anti-abusing power discourages self-voting and collusive voting.
2. Rewards are relatively more concentrated to high rank posts

### Cons

1. Some mega-whales will have advantages to put a post beyond penalty box. E.g. One vote from 6,000 MV whale can make a post have +80% efficiency, while 1,000 MV whale can make it +35%.
2. Vote concentration, mainly by bots, still can exist. High bar implies there are fewer posts having good efficiency (e.g. +95%). Then, for-profit bots are able to choose targets more easily, maybe there will be about a hundred candidates. But if hundreds of posts have +90% efficiency, bots will have harder time to choose and they may need better and complex algorithm.

## Conclusion

Overall, I am very glad to have more fair reward system universally. But I am still suspicious that this will reduce vote concentration problem meaningfully. A virtue of linear-based system is that any abuses cannot have power more than he/she owns. That is their vote efficiency is always below 1. I think linear system already significantly resolved self or collusive voting issue. Now is the time for fairness. Give many dolphins more power. Make bots have hard time. Give more rewards to more authors. And we will see Completely New Steemit!

Sort Order:
·  last year

그간 수고 많으셨습니다. 나는 이번 변화를 환영합니다. 세부적인 수치는 이슈가 아니라고 생각합니다. 세부적인 수치는 운영해가며 증인들이 결정해서 조정하면 될것이라 봅니다. 공정한 분배를 하는 스팀에 한발짝 다가간 것을 환영합니다. 누구도 자신의 지분 이상으로 권한을 행사하지 않는 부분이면 족합니다.
(Thank you. I welcome this change. I think the details are not issues. The details are going to be operated and witnesses will decide to adjust. Welcome to Steem with a fair distribution. It is enough if no one exercises authority over his own stake.)

·
·  last year

감사합니다 ^^ 이왕 되는거 한방에 더 공정한 쪽으로 가면 좋겠습니다.

·  last year

May be you should show current reward graph among with perfect linear and new one, that will be implemented.

·
·  last year

Here it is! But be noticed that current voting pattern is concentrated due to superlinear reward system. I guess the tail will be thicker in the new system.

·  last year

·
·  last year

The new one is more fair than now. But whales still have some advantages given the suggested setting.

·  last year

Nice work @clayop ! We certainly do need some changes on here and it would be nice to see a completely new steemit ! Theres just been too much contrversy and people leaveing and in turn people not joining ! Thanks for all the hard work you do ! Even though i dont really understand this ! Lol ! 😂👍

·
·  last year

Well said! (except the last sentence LOL) It needs much more time for me to write ELI5 version. I will try!

·  last year

Thank you for the clear explanation! Kudos to Steemit Inc for listening to feedback and implementing it relatively quickly.

The parameter 10* a sounds good to me - 40* a does still seem too biased towards mega-whales.

We should also think of this as a price-demand situation. By making a 100-500MV stake more attractive, we may get many more buyers and thus overall volume. Sure, that'll reduce the incentive for powering up 10 BV, but very few can afford that, and Steem is hardly a Giffen good.

PS: I'd say most abusers are in the <10MV range; maybe you can add some figures for that too. My guess is the penalty/efficiency won't be drastically different between the different parameters at that level. If that's the case 40* a is effectively just penalizing dolphins and smaller whales.

·
·  last year

I agree. Making 100 MV target is also more feasible for many users (about \$5,000).

·  last year

It's genius!

·
·  last year

I agree! It really looks good! Nice work @clayop!

·
·  last year

Thanks! :)

·  last year

What I understand seems good but I don't quite understand it all. For example

What is the impact on a regular user who normally earns sub 5 dollars on a post

Same for sub ten dollars then fifteen then twenty?

Do you get what I mean, essentially how will the majority of users on the platform be affected? Will they see their payouts be affected or is this mainly limited at targeting those big hitting, whale struck posts.

Ultimately a lot of people, including myself wonder how it will affect the dollar amount on a regular post.

And apologies, it's the mvests thing that always confuses me so if the answer is written above sorry for not quite getting it!

·
·  last year

I was wondering these very things! Super hopeful to see a reply to this.

·
·
·  last year

Absolutely! So far the talk has been mostly about those big paying posts but I worry that us little un's might see a reduction too. Some of the graphs seem to show a smaller curve at the bottom end. So yes, would love to have that clarified

·
·
·
·  last year

I agree with @clayop's last statement, make dolphin votes worth more than they are now!

·
·
·
·
·  last year

Oh yes me too, that would fair help things along and also probably help the value of smaller posts with lots of dolphin votes!!

·
·
·
·
·
·  last year

Most definitely!

·
·
·
·
·  last year

70 for you now I see!! Congrats!!

·
·
·
·
·
·  last year

Hey, thanks buddy! :D

·
·  last year

Making \$5 now needs about 5,000 MV, which is not easy until he attract whales or many dolphins's eyes. In the new system with `40*a`, a post requires 3,000 MV to earn \$5, and with `10*a`, it needs about 2,100 MV. This is a big difference and a reason why I am arguing for lower discount value.

·
·
·  last year

Event stuff. Thank you for this. It is clearer now :0)

·  last year

Good input from a written and visual perspective..... thanks for taking time for this.

Appreciated.

·
·  last year

·
·
·  last year

No problem my friend.

### Have a good day!

·  last year

Hi @clayop, I just stopped back to let you know your post was one of my favourite reads today and I included it in my Steemit Ramble. You can read what I wrote about your post here.

·  last year

Thank you @clayop. I've been reading all of your posts about this subject and I've learned a lot and I have been inspired a lot too. I don't comment on every posts I read because I read too much and because of the way I read them. I'm not in from of any computer or internet when I read them.

Your input is super valuable. This implementation is huge and a lot of it must have come from your post talking about it. Congrats. This is a huge plus for the platform.

·
·  last year

Thanks! One comment is more valuable that 10 votes for me!

·  last year

This looks good to me! We're in Beta, let's try it.

This formula seems to make for a more fair voting system while still curbing some abuse. I think its probably the best that we can do. I think this will make the site seem more fair for those with low steem power, while still providing incentive to accumulate steem power.

·
·  last year

Yes, I am supporting that curve.

·  last year

Thanks for explaining this in somewhat understandable terms... I keep reminding myself that Steemit is actually in BETA, so we can expect a few bumps in the road, as things are being dialed in. Hopefully this will help address some of the... ermmm.... "tension"... I have been seeing around here.

·
·  last year

Some.. or many of tensions :)

·  last year

When I see math equations my eyes kind of glaze over a little. As a baby dolphin I try to comment and upvote responsibly and I actually do upvote my own posts after 30 minutes. If this is an issue then why don't they simply get rid of that option? I also would not be opposed to clicking a recaptcha to upvote, comment or post.

·
·  last year

I have no idea about curation auction... because it's too complex and curation reward is not all to me.

·  last year

This is a nice description of the new reward curves. And your answer to @meesterboom was really helpful, too. It's great to see how responsive the developers are in adapting the Steemit code. It's such an interesting experiment! And I'm convinced not to self-upvote with my own meager account now, lol. ; )

·
·  last year

Thanks! I am also satisfied by the dev's reaction.