On a random curve

I used to set myself a target to reach each day and sometimes would stay awake for hours and out out two more posts to reach it. This was both a boon and a hindrance to my system journey because while it got me some stake, people think that it is easy for me to create content so tend to value it less.

That is okay I guess, but it does sometimes feel weird to see low-grade content from highly supported people get well, highly supported. However, I do understand this as well as people support people for the most part, not content.

@eonwarped wrote a little about the curve conversation today and I was thinking, would n2 have worked if there was no mining and each account was starting from zero with only a small amount of starting Steem Power?

It would have incentivized powering up and it would have meant that there wouldn't have been large accounts that controlled distribution as they did in the early days. For many in 2016, the way they built early on was through whale stake and trail stake in tight circles and it was these circles that dictated who would grow and who would not. Perhaps if all started from zero, a different set of curators and contributors would have emerged.

Of course we can't go back but this is why I would be in favour of trialling the convergent curve model now as there is more spread of stake and many of those from the early days, have sold and left steem or do not hold a significant amount. Would this help the smaller accounts grow now that there would be more incentive to curate well?

I read a hypothetical post about a randomised system which might be pretty cool. What if the curve and the curation percentage were on a randomised schedule that would be applied weekly so no one could really know exactly what was the best approach. Some weeks it might be good to selfvote, some weeks penalised, some weeks good to vote early, some weeks not, some weeks good to delegate to bidbots, some weeks a cost. Perhaps over time it could be analyzed and refined to incentive better behaviour models.

I don't think anyone would go for that kind of system but considering how popular dice games are in crypto, it'd be interesting at least. It would definitely throw a bit if a kink in the maximisation plans and if flexible enough to be applied backward a few days, would screwover a lot of the automation.

I wonder if it would benefit Steem in the long run or harm it. Would it improve distribution at least as the maximizers will have less ability to automate and, it would bring in a heavy dose of luck of the draw for all users. Perhaps we could learn something from it that allows for a better future or, Would you play still?

Just a few thoughts before bed.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
_{(from phone in bed)}