You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Guardian of the steem universe: A different perspective on the role of whales within steem ecosystem.
Related fact was that 5 month ago, only 100 accounts consist of 99.5% of total reward. Link.
Related fact was that 5 month ago, only 100 accounts consist of 99.5% of total reward. Link.
This is good I suppose but not very relevant. Even if there was 10 000 accounts the problem would remain which is that the large majority of users have no voting influence in the system . Basically the whole system needs to be scaled down to reflect the reality which is that the very large majority of users don't and wont' have more than $8000 in their social media wallet.
Sorry for clarification. I meant all other accounts except the 100 only have 0.5% influence on rewards from their vote. So basically the same conclusion.
I think my suggestion of engagement-based reputation(or just point) system would help in two ways. First, it can remove voting power from inactive users (perhaps using bots) hence the overall voting share of active users will grow. Secondly, if the system properly works, Zipf's law-based(n^2) reward system can be replaced by n^1 because the system can successfully remove reward abusers.
Isn't voting power removed just by the fact that they are not using it? That's how I understand it.
The reputation definetely needs to be sharpened, based on engagement is a good idea but how do you prevent people upping their rep with bots?
To upvote for rep, bots also need to create a post or comment and get positive feedback. It can be recursive (e.g. A -> B-> C-> A) but if other users cut at least one of them, the self upvoting structure will fail.
its a hard and questionable decision to simply punish for inactivity !?