I never saw that, at least until the recent round of posts started being made about shifting things around. I read the white paper, web site, bitcointalk posts, and no I never saw it. People who were encouraged to participate on the basis of rewards being displayed on the site in response to their actions were always told that the rewards would change based on activity (being divided among more posts for example) but I do not recall any suggestion that the rules governing those reward would be retroactively rewritten in a substantial way until quite recently. In fact, if I recall correctly, some earlier changes and proposals were specifically put forward as only applying to future actions.
I'm not sure if this was explicitly state anywhere. I thought it was implied, however, and that (maybe?) common sense would suggest that behavior would be rewarded based upon agreed rules that were put in place at the time said behavior was performed. It's not like anyone can go back and retroactively change behavior (voting patterns, post patterns, etc.).
I expected that to be obvious, I don't see any other reason for the delay of the payouts until July 4th. The algorithm was live tested, and flaws can be resolved before it affects the intended goal of distribution.
There are at least two very good reasons to delay the payouts. One being the possibility of obvious bugs in new code. If, for example, it turned out that rewards were being generated at twice the specified rate, credited to the wrong account, etc. then it would make perfect sense to fix the bug before doing the payout.
The second reason is that the reward fund started accruing well before the web site was open for posting, and certainly before it had many users. If the payouts were made on the normal 24-hour schedule the first few users on the site the first day would have gotten huge rewards. It makes more sense for those initial rewards to be spread out over a few months of usage.
Seems like we're a bit in the DAO dilemma - is it code or intention that counts, and if the latter, whose? I for my part expected a curve like the new one for the first payout, and wouldn't have participated at all if I could've forseen the old one. I don't fully understand the changes we see here, why I'm up so much and you and nextgen losses are so unproportionally high. But I wouldn't care when I'd be on the other side of the fence, because I want that wide distribution that has been announced at the beginning of beta to happen. That's what I bought into.
The Steem blockchain had been pre-coded to issue its first rewards on July 4th, which means it is currently tallying votes and posts, but it won’t reward the best contributions until July 4th. There is lots of interesting content showing up to compete to earn a piece of Steem’s first and largest payout, which will account for 10 percent of the Steem market cap. One of our goals is to attract many content creators and voters before July 4th to increase distribution Steem during this important moment.
I agree with @pharesim that this is similar to a DAO dilemma (I would've posted directly under his post, but too many descendants from the parents' post).
However, what is different is not so much the intention-- I would argue that the DAO fiasco was due to a bug in the contract and someone understanding the nature of how that contract was written using his / her expertise as a programmer. But with this situation, what we have was a complete lack of data about **HOW** the algorithm would perform. I find it unjust to reward behavior based on rules that were not known while actions were being performed, even if the new rules achieve the intention of a much more even reward distribution after the data has come in.
I never saw that, at least until the recent round of posts started being made about shifting things around. I read the white paper, web site, bitcointalk posts, and no I never saw it. People who were encouraged to participate on the basis of rewards being displayed on the site in response to their actions were always told that the rewards would change based on activity (being divided among more posts for example) but I do not recall any suggestion that the rules governing those reward would be retroactively rewritten in a substantial way until quite recently. In fact, if I recall correctly, some earlier changes and proposals were specifically put forward as only applying to future actions.
I'm not sure if this was explicitly state anywhere. I thought it was implied, however, and that (maybe?) common sense would suggest that behavior would be rewarded based upon agreed rules that were put in place at the time said behavior was performed. It's not like anyone can go back and retroactively change behavior (voting patterns, post patterns, etc.).
I expected that to be obvious, I don't see any other reason for the delay of the payouts until July 4th. The algorithm was live tested, and flaws can be resolved before it affects the intended goal of distribution.
There are at least two very good reasons to delay the payouts. One being the possibility of obvious bugs in new code. If, for example, it turned out that rewards were being generated at twice the specified rate, credited to the wrong account, etc. then it would make perfect sense to fix the bug before doing the payout.
The second reason is that the reward fund started accruing well before the web site was open for posting, and certainly before it had many users. If the payouts were made on the normal 24-hour schedule the first few users on the site the first day would have gotten huge rewards. It makes more sense for those initial rewards to be spread out over a few months of usage.
Yeah, makes sense.
Seems like we're a bit in the DAO dilemma - is it code or intention that counts, and if the latter, whose? I for my part expected a curve like the new one for the first payout, and wouldn't have participated at all if I could've forseen the old one. I don't fully understand the changes we see here, why I'm up so much and you and nextgen losses are so unproportionally high. But I wouldn't care when I'd be on the other side of the fence, because I want that wide distribution that has been announced at the beginning of beta to happen. That's what I bought into.
https://coinreport.net/conversation-ned-scott-ceo-steemit/
I agree with @pharesim that this is similar to a DAO dilemma (I would've posted directly under his post, but too many descendants from the parents' post).
However, what is different is not so much the intention-- I would argue that the DAO fiasco was due to a bug in the contract and someone understanding the nature of how that contract was written using his / her expertise as a programmer. But with this situation, what we have was a complete lack of data about **HOW** the algorithm would perform. I find it unjust to reward behavior based on rules that were not known while actions were being performed, even if the new rules achieve the intention of a much more even reward distribution after the data has come in.