You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Making Steemit Better: A Proposal to Flatten the Rewards Curve
Seems worth a try; we are in Beta so we can experiment.
But why do we have to hard code the function?
If we go with modified n, does it make sense to allow the exponent and constant in the denominator to be parameters the witnesses can change by voing on them, like they currently vote to change the SBD interest rate?
Count we make an even simpler transition to n^x where x is currently 2 but can be any number that the witnesses vote for? n^1 is totally flat and n^2 is parabolic, but why not just keep the same equation and let the witnesses pick the exponent x so we don't need to wait for a Hard Fork if the reward function needs tweaked again the future?
Because n^1 has no anti-abusing mechanism. Modified n is basically the same as n if n goes to infinite.
Thanks for your reply!
Is it true that N^x does have anti-abusing mechanism where x > 1?
What about the idea of letting witnesses adjust whatever parameters are in whatever the reward function is?
For the existing simple n^2 equation, we could replace it with n^x where x = 1 + 1/y where y ranges from 1 to 10. The witnesses could simply vote for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10. So the equation's flatness could be varied in 10 steps between the flatest n^1.1 to the current n^2.
Or if we go with modified n, any thoughts on letting witnesses vote on the exponent and constant in the denominator?
https://steemit.com/steem/@clayop/making-steemit-better-a-proposal-to-flatten-the-rewards-curve