RE: Three examples from the early voting penalty change in HF20
Interesting stuff @tcpolymath. Some thoughts:
I think the impacts will be comparative. Assuming your three examples were the only posters in existence, luzcypher would be much worse off, but silentscreamer would benefit, since the rewards returned to the reward pool would (over time and multiple future posts at least) increase her payouts by more than the amount she is losing. So it will depend on how your personal curation percentage compares to the overall stat. When I looked at that stat a long time ago it was 18% (so 82% author 18% curation across all posts). Of course at HF20 behaviour would change but it's not necessarily all bad news.
For luzcypher, if you want to support them at 100% still then I think (again I'm not entirely certain exactly how it works) that it's possible to set up posts (comments at least) with no curation rewards - check the payout on this post:
https://steemit.com/utopian-io/@espoem/utopian-pay-2018-4-12-comment
So all they need is some nice dev so set them up a platform with this functionality from which to launch their posts, with an additional comment underneath - "upvote here if you want to support at 100%". Someone at utopian could probably help with that. This subverts the entire HF of course (particularly since you could do all kinds of things combining this with beneficiaries payouts) but it's one possible option to investigate.
I think partly that's because those two are middle-ground examples. Some posts in the middle will come out about even but the big posts should get more benefit while the smaller posts get less, which is a big part of the problem.
In any case just because it's maybe only as bad as the current system isn't a good reason not to do it right and give all the post's curation to the curators.
I don't really understand that at all. It makes sense that there would be near-zero curation on it because the utopian bot made the comment and immediately self-voted it. But there's a 15% beneficiary to utopian on it that didn't pay out? Does the reverse auction apply to beneficiaries as well as regular curation?
I don't see anything in there that would allow a post to be made without regular curation rewards, though. I think that's just the action of the current early vote penalty. Showing another example of someone using it for community benefit.
I've never modelled the reward pool but in my head these impacts are proportional. So a high SP holder who is self-upvoting at time zero and gaining few other votes will lose around 25% of their post value under the HF20 changes. They will gain back a percentage over time due to the funds returned to the reward pool, something like the difference between 25% and the 18% overall curation stat, but much less than they are losing. I'm not convinced it's as simple and big posts v small posts.
If you look at steemd there's a flag setting the curation rewards to zero. On most posts this flag is set to true.
Now how this works exactly, I'm not sure. I'm hoping the curation rewards aren't just being burned, although that would be weird. I'll try to find some more info.
Interesting, SBE doesn't show that flag. The post did pay out 100% to the author, it didn't lose anything to burning, so that's not what's happening.
If we can just remove curation from our posts without telling anyone that's kind of a big deal. On the other hand the devs could just use that to default to no curation on comments and kill one of the worst side effects of the change.
Sorry! Having spoken to @crokkon and @espoem and some people at Utopian the answer is that, whilst there are no curation rewards on the post, the author doesn't benefit. The curation rewards are simply not paid out (so they stay in the pool I guess). Not what I thought after all.
The thinking is that it's not possible to give 100% to the author under HF20, even if you are willing to sacrifice your curation rewards. So you're right, that is a step backwards.
disabling curation rewards (in the current HF19) is actually even worse for the author if there are votes within the reverse auction time. In that case the author gets exactly 75% of the pending payout, also the unclaimed curation rewards are not payed out to the author. here's the source
the beneficiary share is taken from the author rewards after the unclaimed curator share from the reverse auction time were added to it. source
That's how I thought it worked in general - but that is not what happened to that comment. Something prevented the beneficiary from paying out. Now I'm very curious as to what.
You mean from the utopian mod payout comment from espoem linked by miniature-tiger? This was payed to author and benefactor: https://steemd.com/b/21688715
OK, we're getting closer to understanding what I don't understand, I think. Most past payout displays on Steemit treat beneficiary rewards as curation. Right? I think? That's why beneficiaried posts like this one list author payouts less than 75% and curation greater than 25%. But that one doesn't. It lists author payouts as 100%.
Busy displays it the same, so it's not just a Steemit thing.
For posts that haven't payed out yet, condenser and busy show the pending payout value. For post that payed out already, condenser and busy show the sum of author and curator rewards as the total post value. Beneficiary shares are not shown at all and were already deducted from the author rewards. This way a post can seem to have more than 25% curation share.
The post you've linked has a 25% beneficiary. 5.034 STU were payed out to the author, 2.125 STU were payed out to all curators in total. the 25% beneficiary share to dtube is not contained in either of these numbers. You can reverse the math here: this post had a 5.034 / 0.75 + 2.125 STU = 8.837 STU pending value right before payout.
Ah! Cool, thank you for clearing up where I was wrong. So that original comment paid out its beneficiary but it just vanishes from both the amount voted and the payout display and looks like it never existed at all.