RE: Understanding Steem's Economic Flaw, Its Effects on the Network, and How to Fix It.
some accounts have enough SP to equal ALL (most) of the SP of the smaller users combined
That's simply not true. The very largest stakeholder doesn't even have as much as the typical new user delegation (about 10 SP) times the number of accounts. So they would not have as much as all the other users combined even if every other account was an empty new user account (and they are not; there are users with 100s of SP, 1000s, tens of thousand and so on). Numerically, the very largest stakeholder only has about 3% of the total.
Witness votes are a little misleading because each voter has 30 votes so the SP gets counted up to 30 times, and also because not all users vote.
Large stakeholders can do more damage (and they are) by siphoning off rewards for self-enrichment, undermining the main thing that differentiates Steem in a crowded competitive market (rewarding on merit to attract new users and incentivize adding value back to Steem to encourage its growth). The self-enrichments hurts Steem, yes, but large stakeholders are willing to do it because each individual's direct benefit is greater than that individual's share of the harm to Steem as a whole. This is precisely the broken incentives that the post discusses.
I'm of course excluding Steemit here which is literally the largest stakeholder (and provides the delegations to new users). If they want to wreck the system, all is lost.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my language. I was referring to the size of the votes for each witness only. I was using each witness' votes as a sub section and example of the platform. "Of all the people who support witness x, there is one account that has enough SP to equal ALL of the smaller (non whale) accounts who also support witness x'. I only used those graphs because it was the one I could most quickly find (I am very busy at the moment). My point is that, regardless of witness voting, and regardless even of the current SP distribution, it is possible for a large stakeholder to easily match or exceed the average SP of the ACTIVE accounts at any one time.
The active users in a given week tend to not be much higher than about 60,000 (according to steemocean.com. 60,000 * 10SP = 600,000SP - so on that level, 600,000SP is the (inaccurate) level to consider and a few accounts have that much. We don't have the exact figures to go on, but it is clear to me that a malicious whale could totally derail the running of the platform using 'free' downvotes based on their SP. All it might take is one 'bad hair day' ;)
Well it isn't true of votes for my witness ;)
The very largest are not a fan I guess. Perhaps my view on these topic explain it. I have been fighting against (especially, though not exclusively, one particular uber-) whale self-enrichment on this platform since it launched, often unsuccessfully I'm afraid.
Yes, 600K is very inaccurate because that would assume that all of those accounts are minimal. Clearly they are not. Just looking at this thread there are many 10K+ SP accounts (as well as 100K+ and 1M+) active.
I understand your concern but when the very largest account only has 3% I don't think it is a major concern. And if the very largest does become so large that it overrides everyone else, then it is simply the case that all is lost (as I observed above if Steemit were to actively work against us). Unfortunately, that is the way we are going (and in some ways the topic of this post and thread) since the largest accounts are using self-enrichment to grow larger. It is an existential threat that needs to be stopped, even with some downsides.
The key factor is that the rewards pool only gets divided among active vote recipients, so it's only the active 60,000+ accounts that are relevant. I can easily add a count to tally up the total SP of the active accounts on Steemocean on it's next index run.
It is pretty clear to me that there are those who think that running a 'business' can be done here at the total expense of the social aspect - just like corporates do offline too in many cases. Unfortunately, it appears such people lack the long term vision needed to create a global phenomena that can go to the next level. The community does have the collective power to create great changes, but most people just aren't 'political' enough or motivated/able enough to do that easily. I think there is a lot more control occurring between voters here than some might think. :/
Oh, hey - I just noticed you have some spare vote slots.. Spare a vote for a hardworking witness guv'nor? I have a pretty epic project going on if you are interested to know more.
8D
It is 3% of the SP effected monolithically, whereas the hoi polloi are anything but. This highly empowers the 3% over the total SP pool.
Particularly as pandering affects voting.
As you point out, only more effective disbursement of SP can counter the continuing concentration of SP into fewer accounts, and this should be undertaken with regards to other valuable considerations, as only accounting economic metrics forces reckoning all costs and rewards economically.
Given that the problems seeking resolution are not only financial, such as content discovery, creation encouragement, engagement, and etc., it is necessary to consider other incentive and discouragement mechanisms that may more directly impact them.
Everything doesn't just boil down to money, or we'd all be boiled down already. Effectively resolving extant economic imbalances requires relegating economic factors to nominal import and valuing other metrics substantively.
Thanks!
You are right, large monolithic votes are more than proportionately powerful. Still 3% is not anywhere near enough to grant the kind of power suggested by the earlier comment (shutting out most of the user base).