You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Understanding Steem's Economic Flaw, Its Effects on the Network, and How to Fix It.
can you elaborate on the ^1.5?
If you're talking about difficulties in implementation, I've heard from a very good source there are ways that you can code it efficiently like using the Taylor series
Also, we don't NEED n^1.5 or 1.3 or whatever, we just need something that crudely approximates it. So instead of a nice smooth upwards curve, picture 5 straight lines joined end to end with gradually increasing gradients. That's all we need in practice, it shouldn't be hard to implement.
If it's implementable then I might support it over n^2 and I would definitely support it over the linear system that we currently have.
I mentioned it already, but I would prefer a curve which started as n^2 / exponential (thus flat), and then later changed into linear which would work against self-voting as well as excessive rewards.
@clayop had a similar idea.
Other ideas are:
... implementing diminishing returns when upvoting the same accounts (including own ones) again and again.
... reintroducing the restriction to four (or less) full paid posts per day (from some hard forks ago) which was very reasonable.
... considering to let ones UserAuthority score (from @scipio) have an impact on the rewards of ones posts.
Sigmoid reward curve, your idea/curve and @clayop's idea/curve are all valuable. I'm not sure they would be better than n^2. They would have to be weighed against each other. I don't know how this could be done. One thing I'm sure is that if they could be implemented they would be better than linear.
I'll try to come up with some objective way to compare any curve. This seems quite daunting.
I'm against the propositions below.
I think their advantage would be to prevent posts with rewards of much more than 1000 dollar (increasing the already huge difference between 'rich' and 'poor' on this platform).
Why? :) (If I knew why I could better try to convince you. :)
People creating a lot of consensuses (valuable content) shouldn't be penalized by Steem's rules, on the contrary.
UA isn't as efficient as superlinear reward to prevent abuse.
When implemented, 'diminishing returns' would still allow you to upvote anybody as often as you like.
However, if you would upvote anybody (let's say yourself) very often within a short time span, every following upvote would just be somewhat weaker than the previous ones (if for example @haejin upvoted himself ten times per day(!), then the last upvotes would be comparable weak).
Anyway, already now voting power is decreasing with every upvote - with 'diminishing returns' it would just happen somewhat faster for upvotes on accounts we upvoted already several times (within a short time span).
You wouldn't notice any difference if you upvoted someone once every day ...
Actually I think "superlinear reward" favours self-vote abuse.
UA can be combined with every kind of reward curve anyway.
One could consider for example a formula like this one:
vote_worth = UA(voter) / UA(average) • SP • vote_strength
Anyway: thanks much for your thoughts and opinions (there need not always be a complete consensus).
Indeed. As explicitly stated by the original whitepaper. However, it also gives rise to counter-incentives. I'll clarify my position on the whole subject hopefully soon enough.
Diminishing returns, I'm not totally closed to the concept but my priority is to concentrate my energy as efficiently as possible to return Steem to sound economics.
In theory, yes, but do you think in 'real life' I would seriously dare to flag some whales (if I want to continue writing here)? :)
I am looking forward to read your coming article about the whole topic.
I know, and I really appreciate that!
Were social interactions unimportant this would be practical, but the value of upvotes isn't only drawn by content quality. Society is based on relationships, and upvotes reflect social values other than content quality.
How does this rein in socks? Actual conspiratorial malfeasance will route around such restrictions handily, IMHO.
Improved rep (UA, for example) is absolutely necessary. I expect that in time rep will be more important than stake, as the value of money decreases due to the paradigm shift in industry ongoing as individual ability to produce goods and services continues to decouple from capital.
The real power of social media rewards to change the world is due to that continuing deflation of economic factors, and the increasing import of other societal metrics.
Thanks!
I also have friends here on Steemit, and of course I am interacting with them and upvoting them. However, there isn't anybody I am upvoting ten times a day, there isn't even anybody I am upvoting five times a day. That's just not necessary to value their content (actually none of them is writing so many articles per day).
Nevertheless there are users who are upvoting own content (or the content of their sockpuppet accounts or their circle-voting friends) ten times per day. Only they would be impacted by a reasonable implementation of diminishing returns.
Folks I follow, @everittdmickey comes to mind, that do publish multiple posts per day, might receive multiple votes from me in one day. I often don't upvote all their posts (I do not autovote, and read most posts I upvote), but folks using autovoters might. @everittdmickey doesn't follow me, so this isn't an example of circle-jerking, just that I find good science and points in enough of his posts that I do upvote more than one a day sometimes.
Then maybe we just evaluate things somewhat different (that's no problem of course). I see no problem to upvote even best friends only two or three times per day, and spread ones remaining votes for example to some newbies who really need attention and motivation ... even with diminishing returns you still could upvote everybody as often as you like, it's just that every upvote would be significantly weaker than the previous one.