RE: Pre-Release: HF19 Linear Rewards!
For a network that hopes to compete with Reddit's 100 million+ posts/comments per day, restricting users to 10 votes is incredibly myopic. This is just the kind of unfriendly design that turns people off and disengages them from the platform. I was open to it when it was first announced, but with the increase in activity, things have changed completely and I now believe this change is harmful to user engagement in its current state. Bots were only a problem when there were 1000-1500 posts per day. At 5000+ posts per day currently, most bots have shut shop and left. The likes of fyrstikken, wang etc vote no more. Even the "good bots" like biophil have left. Bots are not a problem anymore, and will be less of a problem as the network grows.
Instead, all it does is encourage heavily engaged manual curators to leave as well.
I'm afraid this is the ground reality of this change.
(Upvoted this and every other comment in this thread for visibility)
PS: I wrote about this in a post a few days back, suggesting it could be a dynamic target relative to activity. So the 10 votes per day proposed back then should now be worth 50 given the 5x increase in activity.
@steemvoter is just one of a few autovoting services available. Despite their very low charge of 3SBD per month to use their service, they make a hefty $500 per day on autovotes. And the numbers suggest 1000+ subscribers. Assuming they use the service to maximise their voting impact, that's 40'000 autovotes per day on posts we can assume the voters did not look at.
I like it. It's much better the more users that use up their power. Remember the heavy curators also have more steem power so more votes plus more steam power favors the few over the many. This should make the platform serve the middle class (like linear voting weight). This is what we want because it ensures the content demanded by the most people has highest payout. Just vote with less than full power of you don't like it.
this was sort of my first thought as well. I really don't vote unless I've read and "liked" an article. The past few days I've read/voting lots more posts than usual and my voting power was actually down into the 60's, so I cut back voting dramatically and the few I did were around 20% voting power. With the hard fork, it sounds like we'll all mostly need to go down to 20% voting for any real level of "curation". But, at that point, it seems to defeat the purpose of "giving more power" to smaller users.
Not sure the "best" solution, but perhaps something in between arithmetic and exponential, that includes a logarithmic component, may be worthy of further consideration:
Voting power is something that's grossly misunderstood. A low voting power is a good thing because it means you're maximizing your influence. On the contrary, high voting power is a bad thing, because it means you're letting your voting power go to waste.
As it stands today, in order to maximize your influence, it doesn't matter how many times you vote every day as long as that number is greater than or equal to 40. You can vote 40 times or 1,000 times, your influence is the same either way.
With the upcoming change, you can still vote as much as you want. But now, you have to vote a minimum of 10 times. A much more manageable number. Vote 10 times per day or vote 1,000 times per day, it won't matter. Your total influence will be the same either way.
right, except if you want to maximize your influence (and payout to authors) over 1000 posts, it's not so much that you now have "more influence", since that will have to be offset by dramatically reducing voting power over the lot.
Of course, for one's own posts, it would be foolish not to take advantage of the newly available 4x per-post boost (out of self-interest), thus further reducing one's available "influence" that people have to spread with others.
So I guess it really boils down to perception and how it may or may not modify people's behavior and voting habits. caveat: Just a thought, and perhaps I'm still just missing something.
For the record, I've only engaged in manual post / comment curation, and maybe it's just me, but I can burn through 10 votes manually pretty darn fast. Perhaps this has also become more of an issue (for me, at least) since the 1 day -> 7 day payout change, since I routinely come across 3+ day old posts that I missed, yet still consider highly worthy of an upvote.
You seem to have a pretty good grasp of these things, but I'd still recommend reading this excellent post on voting power: https://steemit.com/voting/@biophil/the-complete-definitive-and-yes-ultimate-guide-to-voting-power-updated
I don't want to explain it again, so I'm just going to copy/paste what I wrote to someone earlier regarding the whole 4x thing:
The HF will mean a more powerful vote, but it won't be 4 times more powerful, at least not in terms of price.
It will be 4x more powerful in terms of the number of rshares you're contributing to the post, but that won't result in 4x the payout because other voters are contributing a lot more rshares as well. The size of the reward pool isn't changing, so when more rshares are chasing the same about of money, the value of those rshares decrease. Henceforth, you're contributing 4x the rshares per vote, but those rshares do not result in 4x the payout.
How much the value of a vote will increase is hard to figure out. It will be less than 4x, but more than it is now. My best guess would be somewhere around 2x. That's assuming all else remains equal. Will the no-vote-for-whales pact stay around or will that go away with the new rewards curve? If whales start voting again, we might even see a drop in the amount our vote is worth.
that's very helpful, thank you - especially the @biophil post. only $3.82 payout on that one?! that's just plain wrong! lol
The bad old days.