Steem Governance and Changing the Rules
I would like to take a moment to reflect on the feedback we have received on various proposed changes to the rules and how I envision this working going forward.
Background
Changing the rules was one of the major mistakes I made with BitShares. It was a mistake that I set out to remedy with Steem. It is fundamental to a solid community that the rules cannot be arbitrarily changed. Every major change to the rules causes some fraction of the community to leave and never come back.
I originally set a goal with Steem to have a simple set of rules that would never change. So it is fair to say that I strongly support the concept that stability of rules is important.
This position is at odds with my constant desire to fix things that are broken and make things better. If I see rules that will cause the system to crash and burn then I believe we are better off fixing them. If I see the ability to add new features without taking from old I see that as good too.
Development Considerations
Every time we "change the rules" we increase the complexity of the software that powers Steem. The code must support both the old and the new rules forever. After July 4th it will be impossible for us to go-back and change anything that would impact how payouts are calculated. Before July 4th changes to the payout calculation algorithm will not break the validity of existing transactions.
From an engineering standpoint, there is a heavy cost to maintaining legacy rules.
Compromise
We have been actively looking for solutions that enable us to keep legacy payouts with minimal long-term engineering costs. We think we can parameterise the amount of money that goes to different algorithms and this should help us support changes.
Pending Payouts and Precedents
July 4th was the day we had intended for the rules regarding pending payouts "finalized". Until July 4th, all pending payouts are subject to voters changing their opinion. There are two ways voters can change their opinion: changing their votes on posts and changing their votes on witnesses. In other words, the reward fund's distribution is ultimately up to the voters behaviors and would not violate anyone's "property rights" in the pending rewards.
Long Term Governance
The long term governance model for Steem is for all changes to be approved by the elected witnesses. If the witnesses do not update their software then nothing can change. Many of you who post here may not know that you can vote on who operates the network and which rule changes are ultimately adopted.
If you would like to start voting you can visit: https://steemit.com/~witnesses to change your vote. For a more detailed page with information about all witnesses you can visit https://steemd.com/witnesses.
As you can see many of the top witnesses are among the most vocal opponents to the proposed change.
It takes 2/3 majority to change the software rules behind Steem. So everyone can rest assured that any change to the protocol will be thoroughly vetted and supported.
Grandfathered Rewards
Assuming a reasonable technological approach can be found, I support grandfathering those who have been voting under the current rules. I agree that having a formal process with a strong commitment to not retroactively changing things is important to the long term trust people have in the platform.
We will do our best to serve the community and keep things transparent and open. User feedback is listened to and appreciated.
This is sounding much better. Despite the higher payout we could get as minnows, I really didn't like the idea of retroactively changing the payouts. I think it would have initiated another BitShares scenario like you say.
I agree. Personally, I don't care which version prevails. Some combination probably makes the most sense for the largest number of people. The big red flag for me was the direction change which causes former BitShares members to cringe. I really appreciate Dan's clarification that it is important to get the formula right (or close enough) by July 4. Hopefully after that, they can work on building this platform out further or move onto other pieces in the grand vision, rather than endlessly tinkering with this part of it.
That is a very encouraging statement to see! A more formal change control process will inspire investor confidence and help retain more long term users. Thanks for the commitment.
I'm all for the changes, they just make sense, reward for engagement, which is the lifeblood of a platform like this.
CG
Changing rules and applying the changes retrospectively is a big no no, in my book. Even if that benefits masses [me included] at the expense of 'only' one or two, it's not something I'd want a part of. I'm happy to see there is a strong commitment from the Steemit team not to change things retrospectively.
Also fundamental changes to the chief tenants of the Steemit platform need to be considered carefully. Some people have 'lock in' significant funds for up to two years, so they have a reasonable right to expect the platform not to be radically different to the one they signed up for (NB - I'd count some kind of reward for voting as a chief tenant).
FYI - most people would understand 'pending payout' to simply mean a payment that is due, it just hasn't happened yet. Granted they are an estimate. However it sounds like what is REALLY meant is that the payment structure has yet to be finalised and the amounts due to authors, voters and commentators are subject to constantly revision up until 4th July. These my friend (as much as I like you guys), fall firmly into the bucket of "BS T&Cs" and should be spelt out clearingly in bold letters ahead of time! Grrr :0)
Also whilst we're on payouts, are the payouts until 4th July all coming out of one pot? And thus be constantly diluted as more posts and votes are cast between now and July 4th? I've heard it mentioned but its not really clear to me whether it is that or just the fluctuating STEEM power prices that are making the rewards on pots constantly go down. If someone could enlighten me on this I'd be grateful.
Yes but more is also constantly being added to the pot.
Groovy, I like this approach to perceived issues.
I have a feeling that Steem is better than I can know from a preliminary guess.
I'm grateful for Dan's simple explanation of overhauled rules, but it would be useful to have a another summary of both these rules and the new issues being discussed currently. I would love to sit, stand, pace in the same room as Dan and others, discussing this all face to face. (My right-brained brain loves creating, but takes time contemplating, taking everything I know into account.)
But I just realized that however it is done, as long as a stream-lined solution happens (engineering wise), any compromise on rewards is sufficient.
Maybe soon I will write an article about an idea called wisdom, an invisible element coloring your steam power. So all voting power is colored by a degree of wisdom. It would use a different algorithm. Initial wisdom could come from the Log of Voting Power of each vote. (wisdom given = log of vote power + wisdom per vote) It would partially remove credibility from buying power.
see https://steemit.com/steem/@treeleaves/the-idea--adding-wisdom-to-steam
I downvoted the post not because I disagree with the post or think it is a quality post but because I do not think that the interests of Steem are served by every platform or devteam update pulling thousands of dollars from the reward pools that go to ordinary users. The reward consensus algorithm also disproportionately rewards these posts since they are the only thing that 100% of Steem users have in common (aside from being human, etc.).
I appreciate your diligence in trying to figure out what's best. Thank you.