You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Subjective Proof of Work: some rational comments on the self-voting trend

in #steem3 years ago

Thanks for the excellent post. This has allowed me to think about the situation more clearly. I read the white paper before embarking on my Steem journey, but obviously it didn't all go in, and I'll look at it again!

Why should the voting formula be either linear of quadratic? Is it just because of communicating the way it works to the community? Perhaps a power of 1.5 might get a better balance between these 'problems' for example?

Sort:  

Not your fault with the whitepaper (IMO it is purposely vague and over complex).

They say that the voting should be quadratic because of the incentive for people to cooperate but I am not sure I buy their game theory. Doesn't matter anyways because voting is now linear.

This post of mine might be interesting:

https://steemit.com/steem/@kyle.anderson/your-vote-squared-not-everyone-s-vote-is-equal-insight-into-quadratic-voting-and-why-there-wasn-t-linear-rewards-in-the-first

A bit of insight into quadratic voting in other areas of economics. Steem didn't really implement this correctly.

That's very good too. I wish I'd found it sooner.

I guess Steem is an experiment as they say, and the community the lab rats, and we shouldn't forget it!

Do you know if anybody has tried to write an agent-based model/simulation of Steem? I could get my mind around that slightly more easily than trying to model it mathematically I think. Perhaps they do this prior to implementing hardfork changes, or maybe not?

Lol steem will never do that.

I'd wait until the next big thing comes along, hopefully it will be designed with the modeling to guide its development.

Steem is a cluster f

Well that is a very positive perspective, LOL. Although I can't prove you are wrong.

What is your assessment of why mgmt is not working to fix the cluster f, in a more open and apparently urgent manner?

Dan bailed and left the cluster behind for others to manage. But Ned is apparently still around.

Do you believe there is work in progress to provide changes and fixes on urgent basis? If yes, why isn't this more visible to the community?

If you are not confident on the current mgmt team, why stay around? Maybe just out of interest to see how the experiment turns out?

Good points Dave!

Steemit inc. makes this website. Their involvement with how steem (the blockchain) evolves is separated.

All in all the self voting thing is not really a problem to be addressed at all. In fact, there are very few glaring things to change, apart from designing a system entirely differently.

I am confident that steem will continue to evolve and prosper. I am certainly interested in anyone doing things differently. See Akasha.

I have just checked https://busy.org
I like it.
I am surprised that it did not get enough attention yet.

Right, I think my thoughts have been confused by the two big changes in HF19... but may have understood now:

  1. The perceived self-voting increase doesn't have anything to do with the change to linear rewards, but is purely due to the increased max. vote power making it more practical, and noticeable.

  2. To implement the quadratic voting more appropriately to reduce self-voting (the way the white paper claims to support), the maximum vote power of an account should be proportional to the square root of SP, not the square. So moving to linear was a step in the right direction, but not far enough.

It would of course encourage sock-puppets though. It seems there's no answer to that in an anonymous system.

Is this your thinking or am I still missing the point?

I think you are in the right direction. I am not an expert myself. I just happen to know a lot about the diversity here.

Ideally, an entirely different voting schemea might be what is best.