The Efficient Rshares Cyborg [does not need to exist]
I want to share an idea that I had that I have not had time to implement, and I believe would be a neat feature.
Edit: Leaving in tact here, but actually the next few paragraphs are wrong. rshares efficiency is the same, no matter what your voting power! Only thing that changes is your max weight
How many of you have the problem that your VP is constantly low? For example, if you are consistently below 75% power, you are basically voting at 75% of the level that you could be voting at in terms of your stake. Sure, if your vote isn't worth much, it isn't a big deal, but over time it's something that adds up. And the thing is, in many cases simply re-timing your existing votes, and possibly tweaking the scaling slightly would allow you to place the same values on the respective posts while having room for more votes in the day.
Remember the optimal timing to make use of your full stake is 10 100% votes spread evenly per day. Or 20 50% votes spaced evenly, etc. Or more generally, only voting when your VP is 100%.
Wouldn't it be great if you had a robotic assistant that could arrange the votes for you?
I imagine you would tell your assistant, "Hey, I want to vote person X for about $Y".
The most primitive form of the assistant would simply take it in, wait for your VP to be 100%, and cast the desired vote.
The power here is simply the ability to queue up multiple votes that would slowly cycle through, and you would be responsible for filling the queue up. The assistant will estimate how long it has before it has exhausted your queue, as well as if there are votes that area in danger of being too late (likely not a problem depending on how much you fill things up).
More advanced features would also be about taking curation into consideration. Depending on what votes are already on the post on question, it could decide whether it needs to react more quickly or slowly to take out a good chunk of future potential votes. But I think in most cases, one only decides how much they want to pitch in and not think about timing considerations. And this becomes even more true when HF20 rolls around, where really the only consideration becomes how much of the curation do you want to get.
Anyway, this is what I'm calling the efficient rshares cyborg. Cyborg because it's all human input for what to vote and at what value, and the bot part simply times the vote just right. And this can also mix with auto-voting as well, though if you're auto-voting on popular authors in a way that you want to maximize your curation for, then this won't be as good.
Does anyone else want this thing? shrug. Perhaps I also have the wrong idea about the question of efficiency too, in which case I would welcome some corrections. I suspect @tcpolymath would know :). Maybe it just isn't worth the trouble.
Edit: As pointed out by @tcpolymath below, my picture about voting power seems to be incorrect, and I've found this post that is in support of that. I'd like to see a post that has the math laid out too, does anyone have that?
If that's the case, then that's great news, all I really care about is whether or not I need to give heavier votes or not, and usually it's not the case. I just want to spread votes around. Well, I think I'm going to pretty much throw the cyborg out the window now after I verify it.
Second Edit: Oh. In the computation, both the rshares corresponding to the vote and the regeneration time for the amount of VP used are proportional to the VP used on a given vote, and hence the rshares assigned per unit of time needed to recover from the vote is kept constant. No rshares efficiency loss! The only thing to watch out for is that if you're at lower VP, your maximum vote/rshares assignment becomes lower. Now I understand that bit. Wellp.
destroys the robotic part of the cyborg and crawls out of the machine.
Hmmm, a smart voting bot would certainly be useful. :) Sometimes we want to be flexible depending on the circumstances but Steemauto just goes "3 minutes after the post, I vote". Especially for those with bigger votes (mine barely matters), this could become a life changer.
I also want a proper calculator of rewards that considers the time of each vote, curation percentages, the value of steem and sbd in the markets, etc. It's hard to make, but feasible and would be very helpful.
The struggle I have is just finding the time to read posts properly, to then alot an appropriate upvote value and then leave a meaningful comment. I find it's a common issue, and while using Auto Vote services help - I struggle to decide if people appreciate seeing a name in the list of upvoters (be honest - who even looks? I certainly don't) so the real question becomes would someone appreciate more a 100% and no comment, or say a 20% upvote and a comment?
I try to manually curate as much as I can, but nobody can be voting on posts 24/7 - so I set SteemAuto to kick in when my Vote Power rises above 89% and it will then auto vote for me until it drops below - on my favourite content creators. The way I see it once you get to 100% and it stays there your Vote Power is more wasted, so it's better to either have a auto vote on or hammer it down when you can vote so it's always recharging until you vote again.
#thealliance #witness
Yeah I agree with that, I would like my extra VP that I don't use to go to content creators I like as well. I may want to set that up on SteemAuto like you did while it's in the 90+ range. Lately though I've not had the problem.
And then there's the struggle if you're on trails where you vote some amount, but you actually want to vote more. I end up unvoting and voting (actually this could be a quality-of-life improvement on the Steemit UI to handle this more gracefully), but even then maybe it's more efficient to tip on top (or add a vote to a different comment/post)
This is an interesting question. I would have jumped at moneys but actually I do like a good comment more :).
I find it very interesting to discuss with different Steemians what they are looking for from the platform - for quite a few they want to develop posts / writing - and while the post rewards are very - well rewarding what they really want is the human interaction on their posts - people telling them what they like or dislike even about their work.
In many ways the upvote rewards system clouds the fact that people are looking to improve how they post, and want real feedback on the work they do.
Hi @eonwarped. I would welcome it as I am going to vote for those individuals anyway. If the bot can vote for me at the right time then I am all for it. I have no idea about timings and I am all over the place. Some say 15 minutes, others 10 minutes but I have experimented with mixed results. Hoping the new hard fork changes things, especially on self voting.
It all depends on the goal really. In most cases, one doesn't really have to worry about it.
The rule of thumb though is that if you're the author, (in current landscape) you want as many votes close to 0 as possible, and if you're a curator that wants to maximize the value of the timing, you're trying to figure out how to get the weight of your vote in before the big voters come in (assuming you know they will), but not too early that it goes all to the author.
After HF20, as an author you basically don't care (if you self vote, self vote at 15 minutes), and as a curator, it doesn't quite change much. At least that's my current take.
The voting system's actually really good at keeping your efficiency the same across wherever your voting power is. It's one of the things I was pleasantly surprised to find Steem doing very well.
There are other reasons it might be good to have a post-voting script, though, especially the HF20 early-voting penalty. I've been thinking along those lines a bit as well.
Edit: if you want a script that will take a vote request, wait until 100%, and vote, all that's in the open-source bidbot code, and probably pretty easy to strip from the rest of it.
Hm... so are you saying that my statement about maintaining 80% VP vs maintaining 100% VP is not actually much of an efficiency loss in terms of rshares? That's kind of what I'm wondering.
About the early voting penalty, yeah I suspect a lot will want to move to 15 minutes, except for the really popular authors where people will likely still want to take the hit and cut in earlier for curation rewards.
Re: bidbot code, Yeah that's essentially what I'm thinking :P
I don't believe it's an efficiency loss at all. You assign fewer rshares with a 100% vote at 80% but your voting power also goes down by less, and the two should balance out. The main reason to keep VP high is to maintain the widest set of options for vote amounts.
Oh! That's good to know then. I should dig and confirm this from the formulas but it sounds like what I'm saying is a little bogus then.
There are those of us out there who are just voting on stuff we like with little regard to trying to time the votes for curation rewards or trying to tightly manage VP.
This is not to say it's the right way to vote, merely that some of us (like how I'm using the royal 'we' here?) don't have the knowledge or inclination to figure out the complexities of voting.
Therefore, if I had a little buddy Cyborg bot to help me maximize my votes that would be quite welcome.
Might not matter! Will keep you updated ;)
Hey, @eonwarped many new things gathered from your post. It would me more cool if you edit it with some links that shows how autovote works. /how to fix. If and if you have any in your eyes.
Nah. Now I realized that I was wrong, you can ignore the post.
Excellent publication I am new will we follow? In order to continue to appreciate your excellent work accounts with my vote I hope to have yours!