You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proof Of Worth: Revisited And Upgraded
I like this. A lot.
But with one caveat: trails. Trails often consist of many much smaller holders, and even upvotes at a very low percentage (depending on the trail setup/app). If HF20, or a later HF, returns to the principle of 50 creator/50 curators rewards, we will highly likely see more trails even trying to maximise curation rewards. This will negatively affect the rewards due to the low value automated upvotes and thus penalise the creator. Penalise the creator because people themselves want to maximise their own rewards.
But I like it a lot nevertheless. Curious to discover how trails could be integrated in the concept without further damaging legit creators.
Well those smaller votes would act as validators against the bigger vote they are trailing. HF20 will not be returning to 50/50 rewards according to their most recent updates although they've discussed it on GitHub.
I'm not seeing how these smaller votes would hurt the individual, especially if we are using the sum of the votes rather than an average or something like that. Small votes contribute to validation rather than take away from it.
Could you give an example of your area of concern? I will admit that I didn't consider trails when drafting up this idea.
In the advanced model they will more often than not lower the median (many trails are more cosmetic than of any rewards value).
While they will be counted, it deserves a moment of attention. Without having checked the actual values, projects like curie and ocd may become unwanted collateral damage and be obliged to promote/market themselves more, begging for more valuable trails.
Additionally, the structure would possibly take out the gift element of some upvotes. Too rigid a structure can also be damaging. Some orca may decide to actually reward friends (in a responsible sense). That should be OK as long as reasonable, it’s part of the charm of Steem.io.
This doesn’t take away that I like the concept. Very much even but IMHO it should be extended to be less rigid and also allow a (minimal) degree of flexibility in the median. Otherwise it becomes too structured communistic a platform.
The challenge with Steem.io is that any model will always be games to maximise all profits and thus new challenges, unexpected elements (such as trails) will always appear.
We could add some flexibility based on reputation, although that may require some tweaking to the reputation rating. We could also make delegated stake to specific users resistant to penalties. That should help the accounts that have large delegated portions stronger.
I agree on your sentiment of avoided too much structure in a system. There are times that the structure can be leveraged against itself and its users.
I think over time as massive numbers of users begin to use different Steem powered platforms, your concerns will become less relevant. Although I think that some of my concerns with the current system will become less relevant.
I think we share the same concerns mostly. :)
I like to think that over time Steem.io is a (self-) correcting system and economy. Reactionary but that’s the only way it works. I always resort to the hundreds of millions Google has spent on cleaning up its SERPs and even those still get gamified, but at a very high cost. SEO still is a real thing.
Steem, as we know it now and the content side of Steem, will not be much different. We are a new Internet creating community. The analogues are often very blatant even. As such there will always be a cat and mouse game as well.