The Flattening AND 400% POWER, Thoughs on HF19
Full flattening of the reward curve is an extreme economic change that I'm for and believe most of the community is ready for.
BUT, I think the flattening should be enforced gradually over at least 6 month to mitigate unintended consequence in user behaviors to this change.
400% boost of the voting power is too drastic an economic change especially when combined with the flattening. I've once written about that subject at length (got lost on slack) and agreed this parameter was too high BUT As new Steem frontends and completely different use-cases develop the mechanism to make this change should be periodic and new delta % change found though witness voting process and not as a HF. (more on that in another post)
I thus recommend voting power change to be lowered to 2x max or postponed for when we have evaluated the usage pattern brought by a flat curve and a more functional UI on steemit.com. One that does not encourage groupthink though a prominent trending page but give comprehensive access to less popular content.
I suggest supporting and promoting some of the other Steem apps with differentiated functional UIs so that users are less reliant on Steemit which, as you say, encourages groupthink through a prominent trending page.
https://steemit.com/chainbb/@cryptoctopus/how-will-different-steem-apps-influence-our-behaviors-chainbbtrail-updates
I am eagerly waiting for @Zappl and the character limits it brings.
http://zappl.io/
Short posts and short replies need less time to create and consume and thus allow for more time to communicate and connect with more people.
Short posts can be very powerful these days so powerful they can move markets.
It doesn't make sense to me why we needed to have both changes included in one HF. I am all for the linear reward curve change as I think it will help "even" the playing field at least somewhat. However, the voting power change doesn't seem to be helpful to really anyone but the most casual users of the site... and I for one am not sure why we should be catering anything to the casual user?
INC always does few changes without testing ;) but this change seems not bad
The world population is casual users. Steem is dependent on having the largest network effect in the long run, so it is crucial that it be a desirable system for everyone, not just hardcore steemians.
I think it's possible, for better or worse, that Steemit ends up being a network for the elite.
The onboarding methods and the cost associated for new accounts kind of lead me to think that.
We will end up disrupted by a network for the non-elite, in that case.
I would also say that the financial elite typically have less time to be posting to a social network, and thus a higher vote-power consumption favours them. The people favoured by low vote power consumption are those with loads of free time or bots (which are neither the masses nor the elite).
Glad to see I'm not the only one!
Aggroed, we want to open up a witness account together with couple of my friends. Can you please let me know of a good guide, and let me know where to start. Once I have a witness account I can make sure you are not the only one :D
There's a million guides. I like working with @someguy123 and he has a guide on his wall for HF19.
Thanks, I will take a look at it.
meep
You're the only one that feels this way. Why are you against the rest of us?
meep
Fine, as long as you have a good reason.
meep
I think it is impossible to design the ideal rules upfront so experimentation is important to reiterate closer to something that will generate the desired behaviours. The voting I see is too focussed on earning through what looks like robovoting for authors that already have successful (high earning) publications. Good for them but on a system level that does not achieve the stated goal of finding good content. Established authors are already "found".
On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of predictability, if someone with hundreds of (new) followers is upvoted but that does not translate to earnings that will demotivate. It is not healthy that the only shot you have at a decent earning (10's not 1000's of SBD) is to be found by a whale. That simply won't scale and getting earnings with ever increasing content becomes more of a lottery at best and nepotism at worst...
Too much surprises or inconsistencies with the reward system and people will disengage.
I think it is better to experiment now and risk breaking stuff in the short run rather than allowing a faulty feedback system to persist which can cause much greater damage.
Here is a great post by @liberosist that visualy shows how big of an impact it is to go from a squared to linear curve. We all have difficulty grasping exponential functions this makes it a lot easier to understand!
https://steemit.com/steem/@liberosist/post-hardfork-19-whale-vs-current-whale-visualized
400% does seem like a drastic change to make all at once
@alphacore 400% is a fair wack I guess
I think your idea really makes sense since public reacrion should be considered when making decisions for people. This could reverse progress of steemit and as such be implemented in stages.
@transisto thanks for sharing but I tried to understand the post but i guess I am slow or still new to Steemit...I am very much interested to understand :
Is it possible to compile another post showing the curve and graphs and more pictures so that some of us who are interested may understand better.
I look forward to your next post. Thanks
Steemit Inc. is rushing two significant economic change to the steem blockchain in one update with 1 week notice. Unfortunately I don't think you'll have time to grasp the full implication before it's done and you are affected by it.
If the change in voting power turns out to be too much, there are a range of options to mitigate it. Front end changes can have an impact, as well as another voting policy similar to the one enforced by @abit and @smooth.
We're still in a move fast and break things stage, IMO. Giving every change enough time to have a rigorous analysis of the impact requires that we take years to make tiny changes. We don't have the luxury of that kind of time.
There's a lot of money in Steem currently(I'm basing this on the market cap). If we consider Steem to be a startup type company I agree we still need to take risks but a month - 2 month long buildup might be called for.
I think there is a big gap between 10 days and years. Also the more often we HF the smoother the process will end up anyway. (should we put the 2x - 4x in HF20)
Also asking for UI change from steemit.com is one thing not every frontend might be able to adapt as easily.
Also the more often we HF the more likely people will get use to it and the less fluctuation in value there will be leading up to a HF. If we again treat this like a startup being able to update frequently and stay up to date could be a huge advantage compared to other crypto.
What kind of useful data would you expect to see in 10 days? If you are measuring systemic issues they usually take longer to crop up.
Are you expecting a second fork in short succession?
Not data on the actual outcome but thought process by the community, stake holder and the witness on the change.
I agree with the points you brought up. Someone on Steemit also brought a big point that, "It's now easier to vote for yourself rather than voting for others". His point was that, it will require you to post 10 comments and self-vote. As of now, same member will be required top post 40 comments to use his full voting power for his own use (selfishness)
I'd completely agree with you on 2x voting power as maximum. We should wait and see the effects of linear rewards first than making multiple big changes which could affect the economy in unexpected way.
Perhaps I'm a noob, or just dumb. But, I don't get any of this, and I'm confused whats happening.... No idea if it is good or bad.