Steem – The Solution to Curation Rewards

in #steem8 years ago

As I have posted earlier https://steemit.com/steem/@james-show/steem-a-great-innovation-on-the-wrong-footing-part-1
I see a great potential for steem. It is in unique position to take over the world. What is standing on its way is a ‘smal’ design flow – the curation is concentrated in the hands of a few whales. A few whales that received this curation power not due to being good at curation but for other unrelated reasons. For the mass adoption of Steem we need a good curators. The whales are not only arbitrary chosen curators, not only they control virtual the destiny of each end every post but they are in most likelihood not interested in curation hundreds of categories and posts. The consequences of this should be clear to most everyone around here, so let move to the solution.

  1. Let the curation power of an account be separate from the general vested steems the account has
  2. Let the curation power be predominated increased by the curation rewards this account has received aka let each account curation power be based on its past performance as a curator.

Technically the new model aims to be achievable with min changes to existing code, so it is easy to implement. Additionally it removes the need for constant changes needed in a (probably 3 steps behind) struggle ‘to keep up with the bots’ as proposed for example here: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/lessons-learned-from-curation-rewards-discussion (point 8)

  1. Vested balance consists of 2 parts -regular vests and Curation Power. That is to say all rules regarding curation power are the same as vesting power as it is today, except the specified rules below. For example powering down from Curation Power to liquid Steem is done the same way it is done now – one can transform curation power to steem in 104 weekly equal amounts.
  2. All curation award are received as Curation Power, [as opposed to general vests now]
  3. To start the things up so to speak, each account is given min Curation Power if it has less than 10 Curation Power and if it has at least 10 Vested steem. Aka Curation Power = max (Curation Power, if Vests Balance >= 10 then 10 else 0). Curation is permitted for accounts with min of 10 Curation Power
  4. Curation Power can be increased aka one can power up using/transfering liquid Steem and or Vested Steem. Such power ups take (say) 104 weeks to complete, each week adding about 1% of the total amount to the Curation Power.

Notes:
*Point 4 above aims to leave the possibility open for individuals who consciously want to involve in curation, to slowly increase their curation power over time
** On the whales or otherwise Sybil attacks – while splitting an account into many small account is possible, the total voting power is drastically reduced due to the calculation of voting using VotePower ^ 2. For example and account with 10,000 Steems split it into 1000 account. The combined voting power of those 1000 accounts will amount to only 0.1% of the voting power of the original account.

Sort:  

If the main concern is whales converting Steem to Curation Power there are numerous ways this can be throttled:

a. The total increase in Curation power (per account) can be capped down to 1% per day of the curation power already available (or alternatively awarded to) in that account.
b. Separately or in addition to (a.); the total steem, in the whole system, currently being converted to Curation power can be kept to say 0.05% of the total of curation rewards ever distributed.

And so on, and so on…

Upvoted you because of a fresh idea brought to the table but the hole I see in it is that current whale voters would still become Curation Power whales under your scheme. Detaching curation power from Steem Power would also remove a reason to power up.

I was thinking the same thing. I appreciate it may take some time, but gradually the SP will migrate into the hands of consistently good content creators/curators and companies companies who can afford to buy Steem for SP?

So good content will be what big company’s (like microsoft) will up-vote in future? Hm.....

The whales do have the possibility to slowly become whale curators BUT only purposefully wanting to become one (and destruct) curation. I do believe however that most of them kind of put themselves in this curation position as a result of being the founders/developer of the platform and have never truly desired to spend their time curating and havily influencing to the point of dominating it. Time will tell but I hope they also see the current state is/will hinder mass adoption big time, to the point of not working at all if nothing is changed and changed dramatically.

Good point about the richest investors not being the ones who will work hardest at the job of curation, they have no real reason to. Splitting the curation rewards away from vesting is also an excellent idea. Incorporating lifetime # of votes into curation power seems possible, if it can somehow be compared with other voters history to prevent gaming. Add in a little Trickle Down curation rewards to further spread the curation power around, and this could really help.

One way of ensuring everyone participates equally is to have everyone curate, everyone write, and everyone provide liquidity. If you divide your efforts proportionally between these tasks then you will maintain your percentage ownership. If you neglect one of these tasks (such as writing), then you will have to make up for that by performing other work (such as curating or liquidity provision).

Straight from Dan

I kind of was saying the same thing (https://steemit.com/blockchain/@treeleaves/current-cryptocurrencies):

Social media weight should never be according to buying ability but by merit. Altho being 'rich' may help you popularize someone, it shouldn't represent popularity or legitimacy.

My idea here was that those who want to buy the power to influence, so be it. But there should be a separate curation weight that helps the system determine what articles are of value (to humans). So you should be able to buy the power to make something possibly look popular, to which users may respond and actually make it so. But in rewarding curators for being first or close to first, Steem should determine the value of the article and thus the reward only by curation weight. This also may mean "reward[ing] accurate predictions of future payouts" as dantheman has said (https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/curation-by-prediction-market-proposal). I said that too, but he was first. I said: "What if the curation reward was based on how people react to it over time, such that finding bad material quickly punished you eventually and vice versa."

" let each account curation power be based on its past performance as a curator. "

Think about it, that happens in reality right now also! If you are a good curator you earn more SP (half SP, half SD), so the next time you curate you have more Steem Power to backups you!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.12
JST 0.028
BTC 63633.54
ETH 3477.74
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.54