You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Definition of a Whale and a whale-like group and the Math Behind
So why not simply put forward a proposal to limit the amount of MV that can be used for voting?
And find another way of compensating those with MV above that limit?
That way people can decide on whether to invest in STEEM based on the code and consensus. Rather than the arbitrary actions of a tiny minority.
Without discussion on steemit.com, a proposal submitted to github will be rejected. It's good practice to have consensus before coding.
I agree. Which is why I'm surprised about an "experiment" being undertaken by a handful of large SP holders that affects the whole userbase without discussion, let alone consensus.
How is it that the actions of a tiny minority are okay when it comes to upvoting and a few people effectively controlling nearly all the influence and allocating nearly all of the reward pool, but not when it comes to downvoting? If you look at the overall net effect on the system, the effect of countervoting is far, far less than the effect of outright whale voting given the n^2 rule (i.e. 0^2 is still 0 but 1 trillion squared is one septillion, a number so large that I would guess many people are not familiar with that word).
Yes the current system has flaws, but spam downvoting is not the answer.
The "net overall effect on the system" as you see it is neglecting the most important part, the human element. This is far more nuanced than math.
The 'human element' is being stirred up by people such as yourself who probably know better and actually understand how the system works, but enjoy fanning the flames to manipulate those who may not. It is sad to see. Perhaps try working to reduce the misunderstandings rather than encourage them?
The fact that you genuinely think 'dissenting voices' on this are "stirring" and "manipulating", just shows you're out of touch with how regular people think.
A process of "counter-voting" to address defects in the system, begs the obvious question... why not seek consensus on how best to fix voting imbalances and fix it?
Why make a platform that is already confusing for the average user, even more convoluted?
As I stated earlier, it is not entirely clear that it can be fixed that way (not saying it can't, just not necessarily). Some problems require a degree of subjectivity; that's why we have voting at all, otherwise we could "fix the code" and make it reward the right content all by itself. It may just be that we need a two-way voting structure. Most equilibrium systems in nature (or created by humans) achieve stability through a balance of opposing forces. It is very difficult to make a system of upvotes without downvotes stable, perhaps impossible (see post by @bitcoindoom).
This does not mean that improvements in algorithms and code can't be made, and I support that, but they aren't necessarily the same issue nor solutions to the same problems.
@smooth
You may be right - fixing the problem may not be code and may require subjectivity. That can be debated and discussed.
Who exercises the subjective judgement and under what mandate – that can also be discussed. It may be there are more elegant solutions than what is being done at the moment. E.g. Moderators voted on by the SP holders (a la Witnesses), and the method may not be a flag but a way of reducing the voting weight of specific votes. I don’t know. However having that conversation and getting people to debate a proposal, tends to lead to more buy-in, in my opinion. At the very least people understand what is happening, when and why.
Anyway, 'the experiment' is here, you're well within your right to conduct it, I'm well within my right to disagree, we’ll see how it plays out. Hopefully I'm proved wrong and the platform benefits from it.
You trolling me?
No
Oh I like spam upvoting. I hate spam downvoting.
It is possible to see the negative connotations of both and seek some kind of consensus on how best to address it. However I can see that point is lost.
I guess we'll see how the experiment plays out.. cross our fingers and hope for the best.
Thanks for doing this!
Interesting idea. Maybe it could be combined with my idea. 'Grey out' the SP/MV above a certain level and compensate in others ways?? https://steemit.com/steemit/@mindhunter/a-simple-question-on-whale-flagging-anti-abuse
'a proposal to limit the amount of MV that can be used for voting' That is completely vulnerable to stake being split up into multiple accounts and voted together. There are some things, that being one of them, which can't practically be enforced in code and effective stakeholder consensus is what really matters. That is equally achieved by the exisitng voting mechansm (or to say it another way, what is happening now is exacty enforced by the current code). What could change in code is adjustment of the voting rules so that it doesn't support whale monopolizing influence far beyond their share of stake, and I do support that.
I agree with most of what you've written here.
Pretty much any 'solution' can be gamed. I explain the rationale behind the voting power limit in my last post, however ultimately I'm not wedded to any single idea. Because as you say
Which is why,
What is being missed by some, is that everyone has a vote here. Some whales are choosing not to vote and others, including myself, are choosing to vote in disagreement on allocating rewards on the basis of those who are voting. The 'handful of large SP holders' are part of the user base and we are voting our stake as we choose. In fact we are doing so in a manner that minimizes the in-built power imbalance. There is no getting away from that handful of large SP holders having a huge influence, the only question is the nature of that influence, which is slightly different now than it was a few days ago, and indeed has far less effect on what you call the 'whole userbase' now than then. What we are doing, really, is nothing more than getting out of the way.
You are absolutely entitled to upvote and downvote as you see fit.
Just like I'm entitled to agree or disagree with how votes are being exercised and voice my opinions.
I agree there are is an obvious "in-built power imbalance." However my point is simple. If the intention is to 'get large SP holders out-the-way', let's get some kind of consensus on how best to achieve this, if this is what the majority of stakeholders want.
I agree @nanzo-scoop