Sort:  

I'm not talking about abusive bots, but rather voting bots. There are still a tremendous about of votes made by non-human curators. My last post had 126 views and 151 votes. The one before that received 65 views and 114 votes. If there wasn't much non-human voting, the number of views would be significantly higher than the number of votes.

What other points did I make that you disagree with?

The issue is 10 votes are too few for humans. It doesn't need a full time job anymore. There are 20,000 posts/comments per day, it's pretty easy to make 40 votes within an hour or so. There's no dearth of good content now. Indeed, I curate less than an hour per day nowadays, and I simply can't keep up. With a 10 vote per day target, I could probably exhaust it within 10 minutes, and that's it. Yes, we could vote with 25% voting power, but that just crowds engaged users out of the reward pool and forces people to constantly ration and think about every vote. Pretty poor design for human engagement.

As for voting bots, firstly I don't see that as an issue, really. They are humans delegating their votes to curators or authors they trust. Humans who have paid for their stake in the network. Secondly, they'll continue doing so, maybe with lower voting powers.

It's ten full power votes but votes are 4 times more powerful. Just cut your voting power to 25 percent. What this really does is allocate influence from heavy voters to casual voters. I think that's fine. Also would support letting small voters use 2x-4x voting. It would do the same thing.

The issue is 10 votes are too few for humans.

You can continue placing 40 votes a day at 100% if you want, or 10 votes a day at 100%. Either way, you'll be contributing the same amount of rshares to posts each day. If you choose to continue placing 40 100% votes per day, your voting power will normalize somewhere around 25%. If your goal is to maximize your influence, it won't matter whether you vote 10 times per day (at 100% power) or 900 times per day (at 100%), your influence will be the same either way.

The only reason I use Streemian to follow other voters or a voting bot is because I have to vote so many damn times every day in order to not let voting power go to waste. If I only have to vote 10 times per day, I have no need to follow others voting on Streemian because I am on Steemit enough to vote >10/day. That gets rid of any non-human votes coming from my account. Sure, not everyone is like me, but certainly I'm not the only one who changed my use of voting tools because of the enormous number of votes required to use up my voting power.

I can use votes pretty quickly if voting on a lot of comments, but in order to use 40 votes on blog posts alone, I essentially have to be on Steemit all day long.

Why would I want to continuously ration my VP? As it is most newcomers have no idea about voting power, this is just going to be one more barrier to them engaging at will. Not to mention, by voting 25% I diminish my influence, and with inactive curators not doing they same, active curators are crowded out of the reward pool. This means the people who pile on the votes on the Trending pages will be heavily incentivized, and those who dig for good posts will be heavily punished.

And like I have mentioned before, I can find 10 good blog posts within the next 10 minutes now. There are over 5,000 posts per day now, it really isn't so difficult. Not to mention, there are comments on Steemit as well. Like I also mentioned in my last reply, I exhaust 40 votes within an hour or so nowadays. I don't even vote on comments because I'm all out of VP before I can. If I were curating full time, I'd probably need at least 200 votes per day, if not more. This is of course very different to when Hardfork 19 was announced over a month ago. At the time, 10 votes per day would have been adequate for the casual curator.

I have written about this before, and my solution was having a dynamic target by activity. So the 10 votes per day proposed back then should be 50 votes per day now given the 5x increase in activity.

Users won't have to ration their voting power. They can if they wish, but their network influence will be the same regardless of how many times they vote, so long as it's equal to or greater than 10/day.

Any active user would most certainly have to ration. The issue is an active user's influence will now be the same as an inactive user's influence as long as they vote 10 per day. So it doesn't matter if I spend 10 minutes voting on 10 posts/comments or I spend 3 hours voting on a 100. Overall, active users will be crowded out of the reward pool and disincentivized to curate actively.

And this is just now. What happens when there's 100,000 posts/comments per day? That's nothing - it could happen overnight if Steemit were to go viral. Are we really going to force users to target 10 votes out of 100,000? That's absurd.

I don't think it makes a difference how many users/posts we have each day. As we get more and more users, we also get that many more people voting.

I think we fundamentally disagree there. I can only speak for my experience curating. The number of votes I make is absolutely tied to activity. Especially now, there are probably 100 good posts by new comers every single day. And yes, a vast majority of these go unnoticed.

Agreed, I could tell something was weird on here when some not that great articles are getting an insane amount of votes, all the flow just keeps going to the top. For this thing to succeed the new people joining need to have an incentive, this will bring even more people. The Whales getting Whaler isn't going to ultimately help the platform. I'm not a Socialist Democrat at ALLL, but for this to work, there has to be some of that in there to help the wee newbies :)

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 60699.16
ETH 2352.47
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.52