RE: Argument against (completely) proportionally linear effective voting Steem Power
Yes, it's about adjusting the cost / benefit curve. It doesn't do a whole lot but it's better. It's good for things to be better, even if not by much. It perplexes me why people are not willing to make some steps in the right direction, instead insisting on doing the whole journey in one go.
The alts situation is important in my opinion. Of course you can always create alts, as many as you want if you're willing to pay. That was allowed unfettered in the blockchain design because of the stake splitting cost.
Concentrating SP into an account by delegation would be more effective without an additional rule change, that's true. I guess in effect it would make bid bots even more attractive. There could be a supplementary rule with this change, delegated SP does not get the n^1.2 bump in voting, it stays at n^1. It should be remembered in this context that stake delegation did not exist in the original incarnation of the algorithms and so additional balancing may be appropriate.
There are lots of additional and alternative possibilities. What's clear to me is that something fundamentally beneficial was lost in moving from n^2 to n^1
There's admittedly something attractive about penalizing stake splitting in terms of ease of tracking, but it also seems that we are pretty good at figuring out which alts are likely to be together due to how they act. In the end stake being split or not we can judge each alt independently as well. But I think we will likely agree to disagree about whether the alt splitting is truly a problem or not.
Yes if 1.2 goes, I agree we should penalized delegated stake. Might be a little awkward to implement though. Or more likely just to remove it altogether... I see, good that we never had delegations with n^2 in the past.
I would like to know more about this. Were more people staking? And back then how was it in comparison to the market? I suppose the market wasn't super exciting then.
I understand that trending and most payouts were more or less in control by large stakeholders. Curated posts that made it were supposedly higher quality. There were no bid bots but I can't imagine that they would go away if we brought the rules back. At least one whale serves to benefit from passively running one off their own stake. Is the reason there were no bid bots that nobody set one up or that it really made more sense to collude into curation agreements (I am hearing that was happening and was beneficial but I don't know much about the math there even though I was trying to work out how the stacking might work)?
Another question is that back in n^2 times, there were much fewer people also right? Would it still "work" with many more small stake people in the platform?