Pre-Release: HF19 Linear Rewards!

in steem •  last year

Hello Steemians!

We have officially published our pre-release version of the next hardfork (0.19.0), codenamed “Equality,” the purpose of which is to make everyone’s influence directly proportional to their stake (as opposed to the existing system in which influence is exponentially related). Our blockchain wizards refer to this as using a “linear rewards curve” a change that received widespread support from both non-technical community members as well as our blockchain witnesses.

Curation Rewards and Vote Impact

There are two other changes within the update that affect non-technical community members: 1. Changing to a square root curation rewards curve and 2. Increasing vote impact.

Curation Rewards

The change to the curation rewards curve will not have a noticeable impact on curation rewards and is necessary simply to prevent the linear reward curve changes from having a material impact on curation rewards.

Vote Impact

The changes to the impact of a 100% vote are more material. A 100% vote will be 4 times more powerful once HF19 is completed. As it stands now a single 100% vote uses only 0.5% of your remaining voting power (voting power regenerates fully over a 5 day period). That means real users would need to vote 40 times a day at full power to use all of their voting power. This leaves users who are less active unable to fully leverage their voting power. After this change, a single 100% vote will use 2% of your remaining voting power, meaning that 10 full-power votes a day will now exhaust the majority of your voting power. Of course, if one does not wish to use this much voting power in a single vote, anyone is still free to lower the power-percentage of their votes accordingly.

Users can also feel free to simply upvote-at-will because a vote only consumes a percentage of the remaining voting power, not the total. Imagine “voting power” as a swimming pool that is constantly being refilled by the rain. Every time you upvote you reduce the amount of water (in this case “voting power”) from the pool by a percentage (i.e. it’s not like you are constantly removing 500 gallons from the lake). The next time you vote you are removing another percentage from an already diminished supply. That means there are still no limits on how much you can vote, just that the more you vote the more you incrementally decrease the amount of voting power you have (the water in the pool). To get a better sense of how powerful your votes are and the rate at which that power diminishes simply observe how much your full power upvotes increase the rewards of content creators and you should get an intuitive sense of how the algorithm works.

You can read the release notes below or view them on github here: https://github.com/steemit/steem/releases/tag/v0.19.0rc1

The Steemit Team

Steem Equality 0.19.0 Release Notes

The hardfork has yet to be scheduled

All witnesses should carefully and thoroughly review 0.19.0rc1.

Reindexing

0.19.0 requires reindexing from all previous versions.

Overview

This Hardfork is about changing the rewards curve to be stake proportional. The original proposal can be read on steemit.com.

Linear Rewards

With the introduction of a linear reward curve everyone will have a say directly proportional to their stake. #1051

Square Root Curation Rewards Curve

This is to offset the changes in rewards due to the linear reward curve. Curation rewards should stay roughly where they are. #1052

Increase Vote Impact

Each vote's impact has been increased by 4x. #1053

Witness Price Feeds Properly Expires

Fixed a bug that prevented price feeds from expiring. #882

Historical Posts Cannot Be Deleted

Once a post has existed for 7 days, it can no longer be deleted. #876

Cancelling a Steem Power Delegation Fixed

Fixed a bug that prevented cancelling a delegation in some circumstances #971

Deleting Post Condition Part of Consensus

Previously, requiring a post had 0 rshares before deletion was enforced via a soft fork. Now it is part of consensus #977

account_create_operation Fixed

There was a bug in the account_create_operation. Our short term fix was to temporarily disable the operation. It has been fixed and is re-enabled. #987

Fixed 0 Delegation Objects

Previously, creating an account with 100% STEEM would create a 0 delegation object. This has been fixed. #997

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

woohooooooooooo!
Can you change the last 12 hours to be not exclusive to downvoting? There are people who are abusing their stake and downvoting in an abusive way. Please change this last 12 hour downvoting rule asap!

·

Yes, please. The current system gives voters power without accountability and it needs to be changed. A voter can abuse authority in the last 12 hours with no impact upon his or her reputation, while authors have no recourse and can have both their reputations and payouts impacted. This 12 hour lockout period was well intentioned to prevent author sniping abuse, but instead has left us wide open to voting abuse. A better system would be the one Smooth suggested, in which (if I understand correctly) votes decline in % strength during the last 12 hours, so that any vote can be up/down countered with minimal deterioration of value, and any last-minute vote sniping would be nearly worthless.

·
·

I agree about you about this... It is not fair we can do nothing in the last 12 hours. :)

·
·

Very good point. This will definitely make users feel more at easy, considering how the action has been abused as of lately...

·
·

I have been trying to get some friends to join. They had a lot of questions about that 12 hour window. I could not come up with a logical explanation for it and they decided not to sign up. I think the solution that donkeypong and pfunk mentioned would make much more sense. I could sell that to my buddies.

·
·
·

how would they even now about these problems?

·
·
·
·

I have had some friends who were interested in joining. I wanted them to join so I sat down with them and tried to explain things as thoroughly as possible. I didn't want them to be in for any unpleasant surprises. I was able to explain just about everything except for that. I had a pretty good answer for how things worked until I got to that 12 hour window. When they asked "why can you only have rewards taken away during the last 12 hours?" I didn't have a logical answer for them. I could only say, "that is the way the system works".

·
·
·
·
·

Well as they mostly would not have been affected , just not telling them such irrelevant thing might be the right way to go if you try to onboard people. Most of them will not earn anything anyway in the beginning @knozaki2015 @hanshotfirst

·
·
·
·
·
·

agree on that. I don't think you have to explain all the details. let them join and find out some stuff themselves. nobody told me anything ;) .

btw. the reason that downvote is there (at least my theorie) is that in order to avoid whales in voting up their own posts last minute of if they did that other whales have the time to counter it.

I don't consider bernies downvotes to be harmful to the platform, he can do as he pleases with his voting power, as any user can, and if a post is downvoted by one whale and for eample 100usd are taken of a post which is at 300usd, than that's it. there is no post which deserves 500 or more usd anyway. so people should just stop crying and start posting more ;). all that drama around someone is downvoting me is just kindergarden, you know: sometimes the you lose and the other time the others win... that's how life is...

·
·
·
·
·
·

I wish to thank you personally for voting for me this past year. Steem was very fun in the beginning, when most people recognized each other. And now it is a little easier to get followers. The middle time had my best unrewarded work, however.

aizeonsou, I think its been a while since you up-voted me, but thanks

·

A very good point @stellabelle.
I hope someone was listening !!!

·

The old way of increasing the length of the pay window with respect to the votes was working great, I don't understand why they make two changes in one system and expect to get meaningful data from that, besides mucking up the working thing in the process.

·
·

I agree. Though there are advantages to having a fixed payout window.

Presently, one of the better solutions I've heard to mitigate last-minute voting abuse is to decline the influence a vote (up or down) has on a post nearing its payout time. Something like a linear-scale decline over a post's last 24 hours before payout.

·
·
·

Yes, that's the fix we need.

·
·
·
·

I think we need less fixes and to get back in the simplicity mentality, we are finally getting how rewards work because of these discussions and we already have to solve something and add another, imagine people trying to follow this later and how many tutorials will become irrelevant.

It would be great to work this through as a community, identify the biggest(could be something small) "drivers" of the problems and work from there, just adding up patches one after the other seems like missing the point and neglecting he main issues.

We need some network psychology :D and more talks, should be hosted.

·
·
·
·
·

Two more big forks, I think, and then we may find that most of the big coding changes are behind us.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I think we need to split the content from the votes, have the economics as a separate branch, in the spirit of scalability we should take a more decentralized approach, steemit is great, but if we can use the greatness behind steem that would be even better, the only one doing the decentralized (block)chain is IOTA and EOS. Imagine Steem running as a app on top of YT for instance, where you can run a steem sidechain and have the content creators earn from votes we give here, so steemit becomes the wallet even more and now your "power" is even greater, because steem has become not just a experiment but a proof of concept, that it works and it's fun. That would require massive programming skills though. Since the "app" has to be able to add in the whatever information and link back to the main account, in the hypotetical example being YT, so @yt just like we have polo and bittrex and OL, yt where all the votes go, buuuut hummmmm how do you get it from your wallet, if yt has it :) I'm just thinking, there are some holes a lot probably, I will get back to this later :) sometimes

hardware wallet and a desktop app is what I'm stopping at :D so lots of C++/C? python, whatever i need to read more on the tech here as it stands I'm just blabbering

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Great idea. It's not impossible. In fact, if I understand your suggestion correctly, the developers have planned for this possibility. Steem should be able to power and monetize the content on other sites.

·
·
·

This makes much more sense. I can definitely explain that to a newbie.

·
·
·

Agreed, that would be much easier for the layman.

·
·
·

I will second that.

·
·
·

Maybe the advantages are technical because I cannot see them, I think the old way was great, and don't understand why it was changed. (insert old timer joke here)

·
·
·
·

It opens up possibilities to get more creative with the theory and liquidity of STEEM Power and stake. We'll see if anything happens there or not.

·
·
·
·
·

So they broke something that worked because of the possibilities to be more creative. Do I need to call the developers monkeys or is that self evident.

·
·

maybe it was woring great for you but not for tha majority pof us...too much steem is being given to such a small minorty, its not ok...wealth should be more evely distributed here for the rewrads pool if we EVER want to attract more users like facebooks 2 billion members....just go look at how many pepe write great articles and arent getting any attention whie these few steemit elite are lording over the rewards pool, making a killing while everyoen else is left with teh scraps...they dont need as much as they are getting...tthey canafford to allow a little more evenly distrbited rwards pool....and this is an oversimpplication...theres many ddiffferent upgtrades tey are gona impleent..

for example, chainBB ALONE will allow for a better experience with higher payoits for noobs and minnows! This is an example of a way to fix this prblem WITHOUT messing with the rewards pool....we need the type of subredditsystem redit has...but im glad we will ave something better...they need chainBB links on front page...it must not be difficult we need things more user friendly ...we want to attractt everyone on steemit like facebook or instagram, and we cant just have the same people making 100,000 dollars a year whee we could have 100 people make 1000 a year! I also notice many of these people who get like $1000 from a single first post just take it all into steem and liquify it into bitcoin spend t, and then complain about ow they arent making mhc money..they dont wanna invest in steempower...and its their own fault! and if they would just KEEP their steempower they coudl see! but no...and so they loose out..its a goodthing...the greedy must loose out...

but yeah besides a few cool guys like craig and johal most steemit whales ust get hudnreds of dolars per ppst, and dont give any of it back! they should be sending steem to all sort of new users! but nope ogh well maybe they are right to feel entirtled to a magical crypto currency they only recieved because of support from the comunity..but the smart ones here and teh nice people will end up spending that steem they earn on new development and features upgrades

i know i am gonna be spending any major steem i have by teh end of the yar on whatevr upgrades i see we still need by then, i am HOPIG we will pretty much have everything I want here...but i can garuntee you they will be missing a few cruical things like a multiplayer game system to play games for steem....ii hate when they talk about how "it cant be done" or how 'we cant have mhttps://steemit.com/enhancement/@ackza/to-make-steemit-grow-with-more-users-and-content-here-is-my-list-of-digital-accessories-and-enhancements-i-believe-stee mitultiplayer games on the front page" uyeah it CANE be done and if we need a chrome extension a sort of Steemit Enhancement Suit then SO BE IT!

thenagain I am just talking out of my ass!

·
·
·

interesting ideas, peerplays should work for the gaming side, there are other gaming coins we can use in out ecosystem, on the apps an extension side I'd agree with you, the whole experience can be improved on many fronts.

·

This was predicted. Nobody listened. I'm wondering if anyone at Steemit, Inc. ever takes valid concerns seriously, such as...

The proposed change for increasing vote impact.


I'm pretty sure we know what's going to happen with that. But in a month or so, let's all pretend that we're just learning about the predicted consequences and say things like, "I can't believe nobody opposed this!"

·
·

Whatever chain BB will fix EVERYTHING

·
·
·

chain bb is nice, buuuut I kind of like the classic, and I don't like how my blockchain looks when I use chain bb to post comments :D

·
·
·
·

me too, but eventually it will be chainBB that ,lets u fully customie the "theme" or graphic style of the posts and everthing,

·
·
·
·
·

it looked great and the forum adds to both conversation and the presentation, so I ended up voting more evenly and spending more time socializing :) buuuuut when I get back to steemit, I still like it a bit better, it looks more tech

·

If it were not exclusive to downvoting, there could be a larger problem of last-minute upvoting. The 12 hour thing was a stopgap compromise. It should only be replaced with a better solution, and not removed without one.

That means real users would need to vote 40 times a day at full power to use all of their voting power. This leaves users who are less active unable to fully leverage their voting power.

I would just like to know why users who are less active on the platform ought to be able to have a similar impact on influence as those who are more active.

Can you explain why this is a necessary change?

·

There's this issue and there's also the issue of conflating results of what is essentially an experiment. A major part of the reason to flatten the reward curve was to balance the rewards paid out to comments. But if the vote target is set to 10, then comments are going to be less likely to be voted on.

More powerful votes, with limited vote power and the vote slider in play, also increases the cognitive load on voting which should be kept to a minimum.

·
·

also increases the cognitive load on voting

Exactly. This was also one of several reasons why the additional comment reward pool was opposed by myself and many others. We should not have to think about how much voting we're doing or how much weight we're giving to each vote, whether or power is being drained, how much it's being drained, etc. by being a normal social media user. Voting should be intuitive and almost thoughtless. A higher vote target allows for a relatively high number of votes, even from low-SP users (like new ones), without having to worry about the math behind it all and not seeing greatly diminished curation rewards because they're losing most of their voting power.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 40-vote target right now. Again, I ask anyone from Steemit, Inc...

Why is this change necessary?

If something is not broken or in need of a better long-term solution, then there's no reason to change it. Doing it for the sake of "equality" is a BS argument that denies what social media actually is and what this platform is based on. And in addition, it violates the K.I.S.S. principle. What ever happened to that?

·
·

Then introduce the separate reward pool that would have solved that.

·
·
·

Huh? That's in the past. And would have been one more conflation in the last hard fork anyway. Splitting the reward pool was a very bad idea for Steem.

·
·
·
·

Disagree still. Frankly the only argument I've seen against it is "I'll get less money". And this current proposal was once in the past but it's back.

·
·
·
·
·

I included plenty of arguments in this post and none of them were "I'll get less money" https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole

·
·
·
·
·
·

OK I remember that one actually. I interpret that as, here's a blank piece of paper. There are endless possibilities to what can be drawn on this page until somebody draws something. As a blank sheet the scope is endless. But to actually draw something useful would limit what it could be. So leave it blank?

Since comments are already treated differently to posts you could just as easily say restricting us both to the same pool limits the scopes of steem. And I would say that it does since there is far less incentive to comment than there is to shitpost.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

The paper analogy doesn't really fit. Having a limitless scope doesn't prevent anything from being built on it.

The metaphor of a pool works better. If you're developing a comment/post agnostic app, which pool do you choose? And if those pools become even more and more subdivided which mini-hot-tub do you pick then?

Plus, if you're a person who owns stake in the network, you'd be disenfranchised from your own influence unless you were willing to double your curation "workload."

·

For a network that hopes to compete with Reddit's 100 million+ posts/comments per day, restricting users to 10 votes is incredibly myopic. This is just the kind of unfriendly design that turns people off and disengages them from the platform. I was open to it when it was first announced, but with the increase in activity, things have changed completely and I now believe this change is harmful to user engagement in its current state. Bots were only a problem when there were 1000-1500 posts per day. At 5000+ posts per day currently, most bots have shut shop and left. The likes of fyrstikken, wang etc vote no more. Even the "good bots" like biophil have left. Bots are not a problem anymore, and will be less of a problem as the network grows.

Instead, all it does is encourage heavily engaged manual curators to leave as well.

I'm afraid this is the ground reality of this change.

(Upvoted this and every other comment in this thread for visibility)

PS: I wrote about this in a post a few days back, suggesting it could be a dynamic target relative to activity. So the 10 votes per day proposed back then should now be worth 50 given the 5x increase in activity.

·
·

Bots are not a problem anymore, and will be less of a problem as the network grows.

@steemvoter is just one of a few autovoting services available. Despite their very low charge of 3SBD per month to use their service, they make a hefty $500 per day on autovotes. And the numbers suggest 1000+ subscribers. Assuming they use the service to maximise their voting impact, that's 40'000 autovotes per day on posts we can assume the voters did not look at.

·
·

I like it. It's much better the more users that use up their power. Remember the heavy curators also have more steem power so more votes plus more steam power favors the few over the many. This should make the platform serve the middle class (like linear voting weight). This is what we want because it ensures the content demanded by the most people has highest payout. Just vote with less than full power of you don't like it.

·
·

this was sort of my first thought as well. I really don't vote unless I've read and "liked" an article. The past few days I've read/voting lots more posts than usual and my voting power was actually down into the 60's, so I cut back voting dramatically and the few I did were around 20% voting power. With the hard fork, it sounds like we'll all mostly need to go down to 20% voting for any real level of "curation". But, at that point, it seems to defeat the purpose of "giving more power" to smaller users.

Not sure the "best" solution, but perhaps something in between arithmetic and exponential, that includes a logarithmic component, may be worthy of further consideration:

·
·
·

Voting power is something that's grossly misunderstood. A low voting power is a good thing because it means you're maximizing your influence. On the contrary, high voting power is a bad thing, because it means you're letting your voting power go to waste.

As it stands today, in order to maximize your influence, it doesn't matter how many times you vote every day as long as that number is greater than or equal to 40. You can vote 40 times or 1,000 times, your influence is the same either way.

With the upcoming change, you can still vote as much as you want. But now, you have to vote a minimum of 10 times. A much more manageable number. Vote 10 times per day or vote 1,000 times per day, it won't matter. Your total influence will be the same either way.

·
·
·
·

right, except if you want to maximize your influence (and payout to authors) over 1000 posts, it's not so much that you now have "more influence", since that will have to be offset by dramatically reducing voting power over the lot.

Of course, for one's own posts, it would be foolish not to take advantage of the newly available 4x per-post boost (out of self-interest), thus further reducing one's available "influence" that people have to spread with others.

So I guess it really boils down to perception and how it may or may not modify people's behavior and voting habits. caveat: Just a thought, and perhaps I'm still just missing something.

For the record, I've only engaged in manual post / comment curation, and maybe it's just me, but I can burn through 10 votes manually pretty darn fast. Perhaps this has also become more of an issue (for me, at least) since the 1 day -> 7 day payout change, since I routinely come across 3+ day old posts that I missed, yet still consider highly worthy of an upvote.

·
·
·
·
·

You seem to have a pretty good grasp of these things, but I'd still recommend reading this excellent post on voting power: https://steemit.com/voting/@biophil/the-complete-definitive-and-yes-ultimate-guide-to-voting-power-updated

I don't want to explain it again, so I'm just going to copy/paste what I wrote to someone earlier regarding the whole 4x thing:

The HF will mean a more powerful vote, but it won't be 4 times more powerful, at least not in terms of price.

It will be 4x more powerful in terms of the number of rshares you're contributing to the post, but that won't result in 4x the payout because other voters are contributing a lot more rshares as well. The size of the reward pool isn't changing, so when more rshares are chasing the same about of money, the value of those rshares decrease. Henceforth, you're contributing 4x the rshares per vote, but those rshares do not result in 4x the payout.

How much the value of a vote will increase is hard to figure out. It will be less than 4x, but more than it is now. My best guess would be somewhere around 2x. That's assuming all else remains equal. Will the no-vote-for-whales pact stay around or will that go away with the new rewards curve? If whales start voting again, we might even see a drop in the amount our vote is worth.

·
·
·
·
·
·

that's very helpful, thank you - especially the @biophil post. only $3.82 payout on that one?! that's just plain wrong! lol

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

The bad old days.

·

The argument why it's a beneficial change (which I'm in agreement with) is that bots currently have too much influence over payouts. The more we lower that votes/day number, the more influence real humans will have on reward distribution, and furthermore, the more curation rewards will go to actual humans.

Why should AI users (bots) who spend zero time on Steemit have a ton of influence over payouts?

Why should a passive investor (someone who's supporting the Steem price) have to spend a significant amount of time on Steemit to get a return on their investment in the form of curation rewards? The current voting rules basically require you to spend the equivalent time of a full time job on Steemit, just to not let voting power go to waste. Decreasing the number of votes to 10 makes Steem Power more valuable, because now it won't take the time of a full time job to get decent curation rewards.

Users who are highly-active already have a huge advantage over less-active Steemians, because they are the ones who are earning the lion's share of the posting rewards.

I hope this was coherent and had at least a little bit of flow to it. I wrote it quickly while at stop lights in the car.

·
·

None of that is true anymore, most bots have already left the platform as activity has increased. Can you point out a single abusive bot that is still functioning?

·
·
·

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.

·
·
·
·

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 :)

·
·

Why should a passive investor (someone who's supporting the Steem price) have to spend a significant amount of time on Steemit to get a return on their investment in the form of curation rewards?

Because there is no "passive investment" on this platform. It's a social media platform with no actual investment product. It requires active participation. That was the entire point of earning rewards, since there is no mining. Creating content and voting on it replaces the need for mining the tokens.

And as @liberosist pointed out - the bot issue isn't really an issue anymore. The automated voting still occurs, but that likely won't be eliminated...ever.

So, the question comes back to, "Why is this a necessary change?" If you don't have time to spend on the site and can't participate as much as someone else who does, why should you have the same influence on the system?

·
·
·

Because there is no "passive investment" on this platform.

Of course there's passive investment! There's a lot of people who want to (and are) investing in Steem, but don't have a lot of extra time to be surfing around on Steemit.

Why should someone who is active, but has never invested a dime have more influence than someone who has invested $1,000s? The investor is the only reason the token has value.

The person who is active already has a huge advantage over the investor because the active user earns all the posting rewards.

It's a necessary change because requiring 40 votes a day, every single day, is absurd. If I'm going to be voting on 40 different blog posts in a day, I have to read over 100 to find 40 I like. Do you know how much time it takes to read 100 posts?!? I have to be on Steemit the entire day to read that many posts. It's a completely unrealistic task for anyone who's employed or has a business to run. Requiring a minimum of 40 votes per day (to not waste voting power) is completely ludicrous.

·
·
·
·

You're talking about speculators, not investors. There is essentially no ROI on this platform unless you actively participate. The only other returns come from an increasing token price.

It's a necessary change because requiring 40 votes a day, every single day, is absurd.

You're not "required" to vote at all. But if you do, you earn rewards. The more active you are - the more "work" that you do for the system - the more potential rewards you can receive. Doing less "work" for the same rewards isn't beneficial for the system overall. The point of curation rewards is to incentivize the ranking/filtering of good/bad content. Having less of these value judgments is certainly not ideal.

It's a completely unrealistic task for anyone who's employed or has a business to run.

Sure. I agree that spending all day on social media isn't good if you have a job or if you run a business. Playing around on Steemit isn't a job - and it would probably help if users stopped treating it like one.

·
·
·
·
·

That's a distinction without a meaningful difference regarding speculators/investors. The only difference is the level of risk they're willing to take in their investments.

You're not "required" to vote at all.

You are if you don't want to waste voting power.

The more active you are - the more "work" that you do for the system - the more potential rewards you can receive.

That's true, but it comes with a tradeoff. When you have a high vote number, like 40, it means you'll have a lot more rshares distributed via automated voting.

When you have a lower number like 10, it means you'll have a lot more rshares distributed by actual humans than by bots.

I'd much rather have humans determine which posts become popular than have bots/automated voting/curation trails doing that job.

·
·
·
·
·
·

That's a distinction without a meaningful difference regarding speculators/investors.

There is actually a very meaningful difference. If you're talking about "passive" income or ROI, then there is none on the Steem platform. You have to be actively involved in order to earn, especially when there is no interest. (And no, the SP "interest" isn't really interest.) Speculating on prices isn't "passive" income and it's not at all related to rewards on the platform anyway.

You are if you don't want to waste voting power.

Whether or not your voting power is "wasted" simply depends on how active you choose to be. If you can't vote 40 times per day, then you can't maximize your rewards. I don't see how this needs a remedy. Maximizing rewards should involve maximizing your activity and the quality of it.

If I can find and curate 40 good posts and you can only find 10, why should your total curation efforts earn the same as mine? That's certainly not "equality." It's essentially a disincentive for the person doing more work.

When you have a lower number like 10, it means you'll have a lot more rshares distributed by actual humans than by bots.

No - it just means that you'll have far less activity overall. I don't care about bots. They're really not an issue. And I really don't care about the automated voting. It's something that will have less impact as the platform scales and the user base continues to increase.

I'd much rather have humans determine which posts become popular than have bots/automated voting/curation trails doing that job.

Humans are behind all of those. At some point, they had to set up the automation. But as I said...it's not a long-term issue. Trying to "fix" a bot/automation issue is a short-term outlook. Hard fork changes ought to be made with a long-term outlook.

The change of the 40-vote target seems to be an attempt to "equalize" the platform when 1) there is no equality and there doesn't need to be, 2) it defeats the entire point of the system and the reward incentives, and 3) it continues to disregard what social media actually is - which is essentially a popularity contest and a time sink. Someone from Steemit, Inc. really needs to understand these things if they insist on tinkering with the economics of the Steem code.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I have to get back to work, so I'm not going to respond to a lot of this. We've been over it and are beating a dead horse at this point. I am going to clarify a couple things though:

  • I was talking about passive investing, not passive income. Like buying a stock without dividends.
  • I agree on your point that SP interest is not interest. All it does is protect you from a little bit of the network's dilution. And that dilution protection isn't very meaningful - it's only 15%.
·
·
·

One post a week from 7 people is way more valuable a network than 1 a day from 1 person. Network needs to be as big as possible.

·
·
·
·

One post a week from 7 people is way more valuable a network than 1 a day from 1 person.

"Posting" isn't where the value of the network lies. What matters is how many active users there are so that the content/site/network can be monetized.

But if we're talking specifically about the value of particular users or content, then it's all subjective. And one user who posts popular/subjectively good quality posts every day can absolutely be more valuable to a network than seven users who drop a blurry photo once a week and have no followers.

·
·
·
·
·

I agree about posting. Activity is most important. Reading voting commenting and posting. Posting is probably the least valuable activity unless it leads to the others.

My point was that content that is sorted into best and worst by 70k users where they login once a week is more valuable than 10k who login every day.

·
·
·

This thread is blowing my mind! Thank you both gentlemen for squaring off and discussing this very topic. It's important because I am spending quite a bit of time now influencing investors, who I helped make a lot of money in Bitcoin and Ether, to now create a Steem Account to diversify into Steem. A reoccurring question is WHY they have to get in and use the Social Networking side. I've explained it many ways... but the simple answer is that Speculation is a anathema to SANE economics. I'm showing them how a Steem account works as a Wallet and a News Feed. It's starting to take shape!

Thank you gentlemen. SteemON!

·

I agree, there will be less votes on the platform and that will look weird.

·

it does give those with less time to spend on the platform more parity in voting

those that can spend more time here will still be able to overcome that, but more slowly

Users can also feel free to simply upvote-at-will because a vote only consumes a percentage of the remaining voting power, not the total.

·
·

Yes, but their net influence will be diminished and they'll be crowded out of the reward pool by those who are inactive and make few votes. A bigger problem is it's going to hurt newcomers. Most people don't even know what voting power is. We'll have a lot of newbies at 0% soon enough, and being forced to ration your VP is just the kind of barrier that limits engagement.

·
·
·

I tend to agree with this line of thinking as well. It doesn't tend to uncomplicate things and tends to go the other direction instead. If people can't spend enough time on the site to use their voting power, there are plenty of curators for hire that can...

·
·
·

but they won't get down to 0%; each vote past the "limit" takes a percentage of the remaining VP, not a set amount

so let's say X = the limited voting power, and Y = remaining vote power

relatively inactive users spend X
vs active users who spend
X + (X-%Y1) + (X-%Y2) + etc etc

I do get the point about rationing votepower, but since I tend to upvote as a "like" rather than as a curating strategy the valid argument doesn't resonate with me. Not saying it's wrong.

·
·
·
·

It's a figure of speech, let's say to down to nearly 0 to satisfy the pedants in us :)

·
·
·
·
·

;> I understand that LOL

Awesome, excited about this hardfork!

Thought I'd post a snip from this comment by @vandeberg which I've had to link to many users lately when talking about the linear curve and noticed it helped them understand it better.

Link to comment if text not readable.

·

Or if you are using google chrome you can right click the picture and select open image in the new tab.

It should work with other browsers too!

·

And this is without factoring in the "vote impact" change... right? So a single %100 vote will actually be worth 4x this (in a vacuum of course)

·
·

The HF will mean a more powerful vote, but it won't be 4 times more powerful, at least not in terms of price.

It will be 4x more powerful in terms of the number of rshares you're contributing to the post, but that won't result in 4x the payout because other voters are contributing a lot more rshares as well. The size of the reward pool isn't changing, so when more rshares are chasing the same about of money, the value of those rshares decrease. Henceforth, you're contributing 4x the rshares per vote, but those rshares do not result in 4x the payout.

How much the value of a vote will increase is hard to figure out. It will be less than 4x, but more than it is now. My best guess would be somewhere around 2x. That's assuming all else remains equal. Will the no-vote-for-whales pact stay around or will that go away with the new rewards curve? If whales start voting again, we might even see a drop in the amount our vote is worth.

Here's a good post from 8 months ago explaining the upcoming changes (although, I don't agree with everything he says). https://steemit.com/steem-help/@sigmajin/the-tale-of-the-5-brothers-a-voting-power-parable

·
·
·

But the point of it isn't to increase power. The point of it is to even out the influence between people who vote casually and accounts which vote 40+ times per day. If it is easier to reach our limit, it is easier to compete with bots.

·
·
·

Great answer!

Thank you. 10 votes. Nice number.

With this change, will it still matter if I vote on a blog post at a later time to reward a larger amount?

so if my vote is worth $12 at 35 mins, will it be worth even more after 3 hours and many others have voted before me, or will it still be worth the same $12?

·

Your vote will add the same dollar amount to the total regardless of when you vote, all else equal.

·
·

thank you :)

·

One thing to add is that you will still earn more curation rewards by voting earlier than other voters, even though the rewards are increased by the same amount. Along with this, there is still the 30 min voting window where an author gets a % of the curation rewards if you vote within the first 30 min.

·
·

i find curation rewards very hard to explain on video, the intricate way it works is better explained as text on a screen rather than words from me speaking, so I tend to stay away from trying to explain curation rewards in video

·
·
·

Understood. I agree they are confusing.

When the HF "goes live" will it impact the pending payouts? If so, in what way?

·

We have not seen a compelling argument that this will occur.

·
·

Ok, sounds good. Thanks!

I'm happy with what I'm reading as of now. I'll be waiting for other witness inputs and the official release before updating. Great work guys!

I vote yes for the linear change. Do you know, roughly, the difference it will have on an account? Will it be the same as it is now with the flagging experiment spreading out the voting power or will there be an increase in smaller accounts?

·

I think the comment by @acidyo might help with this question. If so, please upvote @acidyo's comment.

I

·
·

Yeah I have seen this but I was wondering if that factors in the flagging experiment?

·
·
·

I believe it does not. From what I understand user behavior is too unpredictable to accurately model for changes like this. Linear rewards will dramatically impact the voting power of whales, how they respond to that, and how other people respond to their response is unfortunately too difficult to predict. But we will definitely monitor the effect.

·
·
·
·

Well only one way to find out, we will all figure out together :). Thank you for responding.

·
·
·
·
·

My pleasure!

But wait,
if you will only need 10 (100%) votes now to exhaust your voting power, does that mean that some people will use 100% of voting power for a self-vote thus increasing their own reward massively? I smell abuse.

·

yes, and this will create demand for steem power, good for the price of steem

·
·

You have different view on this, but you are not wrong. :) I agree with you, the demand will increase the price.

·

It seems if you are right that that could be counter productive. That would take away from the lower levels like myself and encourage the higher levels to self-vote.

·

I'm sure it would be easy to create bots to counteract abusers of self-votes.

·

Technically if it is blatant self voting (which isn't voting on your own stuff that adds value to the platform) then other users can still downvote. It doesn't really change what users can already do today, it just allows them to do it across fewer posts. Doing it across fewer posts would likely make it more noticeable that people are doing it - so IDK if it will really cause much harm.

·

It takes much more than 10 votes to exhaust your voting power. Your voting power will eventually reach an equilibrium where the voting power used each day is equal to the 20% you get back each day. Because spending voting power is exponential decay, it actually takes 11 votes to decrease your voting power to 80%. Another 14 to decrease to 60%. 20 more to get to 40%. 35 more to get to 20%. 79 total votes to get to 20% voting power, all with 100% votes. Under the current rules it would take 321 100% votes to decrease your voting power to 20%.

·
·

Thank you. Very helpful.

Déjà vu!

Guess I'll repost my comment and current replies... lol
Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 4.59.52 PM.png

·

I'd do the same thing in reply too this comment, but then I'd be afraid of getting stuck in the wrong dream....

·
·

lol I just glimpsed the infinite

Equality.gif

·

I like to think he is a friendly robot who just gives hugs.

·
·

Lol, maybe that's the truth he is so keen to hide!!!

·

Hope he isn't going to drain the pool again LOL

·
·

Who knows what he will do!

Wow. This is great news! So good. I am thrilled to be a new member, PLEASE FOLLOW ME!!! And check out my latest post on what I believe just might be a great opportunity in crypto if you act fast.

#HTMLCOIN.

https://steemit.com/htmlcoin/@flycryptoguy/i-had-a-hunch-about-digibyte-when-it-was-at-50-sats-verge-and-rdd-too-hmmmmm

: )

One vest, one vote.

Thank you very much @steemitblog

Congratulations @steemitblog!
Your post was mentioned in my hit parade in the following category:

  • Comments - Ranked 5 with 95 comments

So I like what I'm reading here except for the part under "vote impact." Can we please keep it set up to where if I make a full strength vote it deducts 2% from the total voting power, meaning all 100%? I do not like this business of the 2% being deducted from what's left, because that means each new vote loses impact. I tend to vote in short bursts and I'd really like for all my votes to have the same impact. Then I'd just like to wait until my voting power replenishes before I keep going. Can you please change that before implementing the hard fork? Where do I go to formally register this feedback?

As it stands now a single 100% vote uses only 0.5% of your remaining voting power (voting power regenerates fully over a 5 day period)
I din't know that..

·

Neither did I. I think the change will be good though...

Cool!

I wonder if voting on posts with declined rewards affects my voting power though.

Is it likely to have to change again? I haven't figured out all the details, but I hope this allows everyone to have a say without exposing Steemit to abuse.

Onward and upwards

I like the new rules.

Now @steemitblog is twisting my head with this Hardfork complexity!!!.....sadface

·

Haha! You'll need to understand the basics first, how things were before now, to fully understand this.

I've got you tho 😉

·
·

Abi......cos it's really trickish!

·
·
·

All of our changes are intended to make the site more useable. If you just want to create content, you don't have to worry about all of this stuff. Just post, comment, upvote, and engage however you wish. Many of our users want to have a deeper understanding of how things work, which is why we share information through this blog, however, we do not want to give the impression that you have to understand all of this in order to use the site.

  • Community Liaison
·
·
·
·

That's fair.
Steem on and no fears.

Thanks for the information!

Hardfork 19 sounds good.

Great news!

Code name messed up on the first post had to re-post.

Why can't posts be deleted? Why take away from the user? What if there is a dispute over a post?

This makes me positively giddy! Males my 2 months even MORE worth the time!

Good job.

The linear reward curve seems like a good plan.

But:

A 100% vote will be 4 times more powerful once HF19 is completed.

I'm not happy about this.

·

The wording is confusing people. All it means is our limit will be reached faster, making it easier to compete with bots. Nothing else about voting power has changed. Currently we do not maximise the use of our votes until we got 40 at 100% which only autovoters can do. Soon we can maximise just with 10 votes, or knock our power down to 25% to spread our votes out 40 times. This means autovoters will no longer have a huge advantage over people who actually read the posts and probably don't read more than 10 per day.

·
·

Currently we do not maximise the use of our votes until we got 40 at 100% which only autovoters can do.

I've played Diablo.
I can click more than 40 times a day.

·
·
·

I don't play diablo. And I'd rather have equal opportunity to maximise my votes as somebody who votes arbitrarily and irresponsibly without reading the posts. I'd rather those users didn't have the advantage.

·
·
·
·

The way I see it, the collusion will increase, as there will be no incentive to vote outside of the usual circle.

·
·
·
·
·

Pretty sure the circle jerk trending daily is as bad as it can get. Yes users will vote for themselves. They are often on the same trending page more than once so clearly they can simply post more 4x to get the 4x voting reward. Nothing ever stopped anybody doing that. Apart from the "experiment" which was inherently flawed by only targeting whales instead of daily trenders. I guess if we wanted to address that problem we would have to push voting power down instead of up, increasing the target to 100 votes per day, which of course would further empower bots.

So the question is who is a greater problem. Users who upvote themselves and their friends, or bots making the vast majority of the decisions on how people get rewarded. (Note: bots don't see new users)

·
·
·
·
·
·

Note: My bot sees new users.

The usual gang will hog trending even more - that's my prediction.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I don't think it's possible to hog it more. The only person I can see on it right now who isn't there every day is @trafalgar and he happens to be a whale who doesn't need much help to put himself there. That problem can't be made worse, yet it is not being addressed.

thanks for the repost. At what point will i be able to change what percent of power i put into a vote?

·

I think it is 500 steem power in your account.

Looking forward to this change :)

Does this mean that newcomers like me make more of an impact with my votes? 😀🤔

·

Yes, absolutely. The following image illustrates the change

I'm not a developer, but I'm curious to know why vote_power_reserve_rate is 10 in database.cpp and 40 in global_propert_object.hpp?

·

It was 40 (implying max efficient vote per day is 40) but now 10, which is 4x increased.

·
·
·
·
·

Ah didn't realized that. Curious too.

·
·
·

the hpp contains an initial value for vote_power_reserve_rate, but later when the code is running the value is changed to 10 only if we are working in the HardFork 19.

This is made in this way because the code must have a door to calculate all of the powers in the previous hardforks, because the first blocks were created in another manner.

I agree about you about this...:)

sounds good...

EQUALITY is what we need! Linear rewards will bring in more users. I think everyone will have a greater impact with their 4x's voting power! Steemit is finally getting adoption by the masses! One small request... can you please allow us a longer period of time to edit posts?

Putting on my legal hat...

What happens if a court orders a post to be deleted? Is there a way for witnesses to override or overpower the 7-day rule? Would you have to have a fork just for this? Or could there be a method to instantly and irrevocably delete old content as long as witnesses agree? Like an editable blacklist?

I believe this is the better path to go. We need to breach the gap of the ones in the higher strata of Steemit and those who are engaging daily trying to bring more people in. Looking forward for the next hardfork.

My thoughts on the upcoming Hardfork: https://steemit.com/steemit/@depth/how-will-hardfork-19-affect-you

Thanks for giving so much to the community!

Sounds like a great fork! When is this happening again? Looking forward to it.

·

As soon as possible. The witnesses have to review it and it must put through the necessary quality assurance testing. Once we are all certain the HF is safe to implement the witnesses will adopt it. It usually takes 1-2 weeks.

Amazing news! more rewards will be awarded so now we all have to be careful who gets the votes. but this change will affect comments will it now?

Sounds good.

I propose a campaign to all Steemians, to reach as much as possible of our community members regarding the curation curves, with a post that explains in non technical words what the new situation is. Otherwise I predict a whole lot of confusion regarding at least the "Increase Vote Impact" feature!

EDIT: after a good morning of thinking, I like to add this to the increase of vote power...

My take after thinking this through this morning:

  • I don't understand why we have to increase vote power.
  • 40 votes per day is not a lot when voting for comments.
  • I predict that we will see less votes for comments which is bad for driving engagement.
  • It is also ok not to use all vote power each day; I really do not understand the fuss around not using all the vote power daily; BTW in our setup it doesn't even have to be daily, users can vote until they have 0% power and then it takes 5 (?) days to get back to 100%

note

  • The mechanisms to distribute some of the vote power to others is not easy for the 'mass' in Steemit to distribute this.

note

  • I also predict that we see first a lot of posts debating the fact that many users will be out of vote power, since many users are accustomed to vote with 100% to posts, the new 100% will be a lot more powerful. At first users will think: WTF my vote is worth X more. Then they start posting positive things about their increase of vote power. Than they see a drop in vote value, and maybe, maybe, maybe they then start realising their is something wrong with their vote power, but more likely they start posting a lot about what they see (ie low rewards impact) but don't have an answer for.
·

The UI could by default vote with 25%, but additionally add a "supervote" or similar. It's not about reducing the amount of votes one has, you can always extend that number by voting lower (until a certain threshold at 1% of course)

·
·

I understand, but for some reason it does feel different to cast votes with 25%, or to receive votes with 25%. Also I think the slider should be removed and replaced with preset percentages. The slider is flexible, but it takes time to set it at a particular percentage. I just think the result of the 10 votes per day 100% full power will reduce comment voting and as a result will reduce engagement. But for what I understand, the chooses are made.

·
·
·

The thing is, I don't know if. when and how the UI will adapt. There are so many things to improve here, let's not get started on that ;)

·
·
·
·

Well, more than 1 year in beta and still not solved the basics, which is performance, sensible and workable rewarding, no tools for increase of post visibility for most of the users, a UI that seems to be something we saw when WWW was just launched to the general public...Yes a lot to do, I know, but question is: will this take another year or two? Sorry that I'm this upfront, first of all I'm Dutch and we are straight to point, and secondly, competition is coming, so it is in the interest of us the community as well as Steemit Inc, to hurry up.

Amazing! Just read it quickly and already felt this is huge. Will read it thoroughly again when I wake up.

Give people 40 votes and let them vote up to 4x on 1 post?

Appreciate the update. SK.

Looking forward to this. :D Good news!

i like your post

Please make sure that rewards to new trending posts won't drop from several hundreds to several dollars.

This is great, can't wait!

Sounds good, looking forward to it

This whole thing is hard for me to figure out