Curation Bot’s - Race to the bottom - The Impending BOT Armageddon!!!

in #steemit-bots8 years ago (edited)

There is an impending Curation Crisis coming. If you want to understand why this is happening, and how this is going to change the Curation landscape, read on..

The Curation Bot as we know them are about to Die!!

Curation Bots are at war. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch. For some time (well, Steemit's not been around too long, let's say 10 weeks) some Curation Bot's have been making spectacular returns, but that is about to come to an end.

The Original Curation Rewards Algorithm:

It was simple, the Earlier you vote, the higher the share of the Curation Rewards you received (it was still relative to your Voting Power just like today). This lead to some very successful Bot's instantly up-voting (a split second after posting) any content with certain tags, or by certain authors. Curation was simply a race to vote first.

The Curation Rewards Algorithm Today:

The Algorithm is just like before, however with the addition of a 30 minute window where, the earlier you vote, the higher the proportion of your curation reward goes to the Author. So, if you vote 1 second after a post (is posted) you will synthetically be giving ~99% of you curation reward to the author. This changes on a 'sliding scale' until, If you vote 1 second before the end of the 30 minute window, you will give the author ~1% of your Curation Rewards.

This Complicated Things.. Which was the point..

So, what time do the Bot's coders set their vote to come in.. 5mins? 10mins? 15mins? 20mins? 25mins? 30mins? There is a trade off whatever time they opt for. Too late, gives other users the time to up-vote before the Bot, and take more of the curation rewards. Too early, and the bot will be giving away too much of their curation reward to the Author. This was the aim of the developers, to even the playing field and give human users a chance against the bot’s.

Well, this is where Game Theory comes into play.

Let's talk about Steemit's favourite Bot.

@wang is the original bot. But, he is hitting some problems, and unless he evolves, these problems won’t go away. @wang is very successful, and kudos to the owner of that account. They seen a big opportunity, and first mover advantage ensured they were compensated for their work.

When the Curation Algorithm changes came through, @wang set his vote to 15mins. Giving up 50% of the Cuartion Rewards, but still getting in nice and early.

Unfortunately for @wang, his success will be his downfall. This is the killer for every successful bot on Steemit. The Steemit Blockchain provides complete transparency to a users actions. So, some other clever users are sat there watching @wang making up to 900 Steem per day, and thought, "I want a bit of that..."

So, they set up a bot to 'front run' @wang (vote just before @wang). They looked at who or what @wang was voting on, and set their bot to vote at 14mins. Over time, the number of users engaging in this activity increased, and @wang Curation Reward begins to fall. So he Drops to 13mins. And so, the cycle begins once more,

@wang has gone from 15mins to 9mins over the last few weeks...This means that @wang is currently giving away over 70% of his curation rewards to Authors;

9mins/30mins = 0.166666
1-0.3 = 70%

Where does this end?

I've been a futures trader from 8 years, and I've had to change my trading strategy too many times to count. I’ve gone through 12month period of following a strategy which makes consistent money, but then, more users start to follow your lead, and eventually the ‘Edge’ is gone. The money disappears, and you have to change your trading strategy to continue to make money. There is a term;

Adapt or Die

This fit's the upcoming Curation shift nicely.

If there is one thing I know about, it’s the life cycle of a market inefficiency. Here is how it goes.

I see the Steemit Curation very similar to trading a Financial Market. There is money to be made by identifying inefficiencies (a post that should have more up-votes), however, it’s currently too easy. There is only a finite pool of funds that can go to this type of Curation Behaviour, and as number of users following the same strategy increases, the rewards for each user will tend to zero over time…

A Fast Buck Never Lasts

Adapt or Die - The Rise of the 'Black Box' Bot's and the HUMAN Being

I believe that, the current bots will continue their race to the bottom until all the curation rewards (available to their strategy) will be neutralised. The bot’s don’t get bored, they don’t need money to survive, they will keep going until their earnings hit zero. Now, here is how we all benefit from this phenomena…

Black Box Bot’s

Bot’s are going to be forced to become Smarter and Darker Beings. By Darker, I Don’t mean Evil, I mean harder to predict, operating inside a black box. In order for a bot to survive, they are going to be forced to come up with a strategy which actually finds the best content before everyone else, but in a way that they cannot be ‘Front Run’.

This means that, they won’t be up-voting certain authors work blind, they won’t be upvoting key words or tags, this is too easy to replicate. They are going to have to create some kind of artificial intelligence in order to have any kind of longevity. This in turn will help un-discovered quality author become noticed, and even-out the playing field.

Currently Successful Authors will get a Larger Share of the Rewards...
Authors are already earning a large percentage of Curation Rewards because of the Bot’s voting activity. The race to the bottom will only extenuate this. Many authors are already being awarded with 70%+ of the curations rewards, and this is only set to increase.

The Human Touch

Human’s can change quicker than Bot’s. It’s time to stop following bot’s and upvoting content blind, and time to get your hand dirty and discover new talent. The Bot’s evolution will take some time, but I believe there will be a rise in successful quality human curators and the rewards they receive.

End of the Self Fulfilling Prophesy

Some Bot’s currently have a lot of power. When they vote, it carries a lot of weight. But, unless they begin to use it in a different manner, they will lose it. This power is valuable, where one vote from them comes, 50 more follow. However, if they are picking average content, and the 50 user on their 'back' stop making curation rewards, they will lose this power. It is in their interest to adapt, and use this power for good. I expect to begin to see a more human element to these Bot’s moving forward…

Curation rewards become Economically Sensible
Curators add value, but the level of value varies when comparing a Bot to a human being. A human being reading through a post and making a judgement as to whether the author deserves a reward is certainly more valuable than a bot voting.

Bot’s do add value. They attach themselves to previously successful authors, or topics. These criteria have essentially been decided by the communities past actions (likes/dislikes), so they are almost operating themselves as a indexing function for Steemit. This however, with the recent UI update, is no longer needed, and many users will be content to see rewards for such services falling, and this in turn opening the doors to Human Curators.

Summary

Expect the Curation Rewards for Bot’s to continue to fall over the coming weeks/months. The problem is, there will be NO need to turn them off until rewards hit zero, due to the very low marginal cost of them operating. This is why the race to the bottom is happening, and this is why it won’t end.

This can only be a good thing for Steemit. This will force the Curation Bot’s to improve, and become less predictable, which will in turn help discover new and exciting talent on the platform.

It will also open the door to super star human curators. Eventually these users will carry the same kind of weight (Power) that a vote from some of the most infamous curation bots do today…

Sources
Images: http://www.freepik.com

Sort:  

I can think of lots of strategies for our friend @wang to survive :-)

The bots that are front-running @wang depend on wang voting after them in order to increase the total pot that the article gets.

So all @wang needs to do is switch off his bot for a week, and curate by hand. The posts he was upvoting suddenly get less reward. Meanwhile wang is building a new portfolio of authors that he can single-handedly catapult into the big time.

Those bots that monitor everything wang votes for will get confused too - which of the hand curated authors will wang finally fix on when he switches his bot back on? Those who aren't monitoring who wang is voting for (by assuming his old list was fixed) will get stuffed.

But no matter the outcome, a new bunch of authors get discovered and wang gets his curation profits back! The beauty of this platform from wang's point of view is there are so many good authors to choose from.

Am I a retarded idiot?
I'm upvoting content which I think is interesting and deserves an upvote. I don't care about "curation rewards" in the 1st place. I care about fun detecting new interesting stuff I never would have been reading without Steemit. For me Steemit is not work but fun. Sorry, Steemit workers ;)

Amen to that! I myself have been voting on things which I find interesting, strongly agree with, or teach me something. I find the concept of voting bots to be disconcerting and cold. If the platform doesn't reward natural human voting styles then something needs to be changed... or maybe I just need to learn how to write bots.

Some people want to vote fast. I want to learn to read faster. Before upvoting my friends, read first.
As for the bots - bot are bots and they will improve by time.
We only will benefit actually

Will the bots really wait until zero though? I know the cost of running them are minimal, but isn't there an opportunity cost of not adapting early (wasted or at least not optimal use of voting power)?
For my own selfish reasons, I wish there was a way to easily benchmark your curation rewards against users with similar SP. It's difficult to tell if you're "doing well" so to speak.

To your later point. That is possible. Go to https://steemd.com/richlist find yourself on the list. Then go and look at users around yourself on Steemit. Alternatively, work out your % weekly return(weekly curation rewards value/account value), and compare it to other users.

To your first point. Yes, your point makes complete sense. I just think that, this is going to happen so quickly, and the evolution is so complex, that the adaption might take more time than it takes for the market to get saturated..

That's a useful link...... thanks

That's a good idea. thanks olllie... oh, i never realised it has 3 'L's.

I hadn't considered the speed vs complexity of adapting. You're probably right, as you showed in your post we've already had several changes in a relatively short time-frame. But they were comparatively easier to code (i.e. wait time before voting etc). I know steemups.com is trying to do part of what you're suggesting in terms of predictive analytics. But I don't know how accurate it is with the features it already considers.

The more I look at this and experience it I must agree with thoughts that @dantheman came up the other day in one of his comments. It seems that curation is flawed in its roots. The idea is wonderful but the problem lies when you are rewarded to upvote something by not giving anything but time. Bots don't hive time in means that people have, so people or bots just upvote for profit not for right reasons (or maybe for both). If they were to give their money they wouldn't act in the way they do now.
To conclude any kind of curation reward will always lead to competition or outsmarting others for profit and not for primarily rewarding quality content.
At the same time curators are essential for this platform to survive because they are one content is made in first place.

I agree with a lot of what @dantheman has been posting too. Following and upvoting posts that bots upvote may help you make a little money, but it doesn't curate good content. There's an interesting thread about this elsewhere from last night by @stellabelle. I think you can still find it in Trending. We have a flood of new content coming in and it seems many minnows have given up on curation because there's no financial reward for them. The remaining people curating for profit can't keep up with the content. So a lot of good content is never discovered and promoted. I hope that the bots neutralize themselves, because honestly I don't think they add to identifying quality content. They also won't help in the growth of the steemit community. Great post Olllie.

I've read discussion @stellabelle too. I feel that 2 things are problematic. 1. human nature and greed, we can't fix that, but we can remove curation rewards. Lots of suggestions on @stellabelle post was constructive ways for minnows to take part in the community and earn money, to some extent like DASH finances its development.

  1. limits of platform, sure improvements in indexing can fix things for better, but scalability is one of the biggest problems of chain based technologies in general. For STEEMIT is how to curate through lots of new content and how to make users feel appreciated and value their work.
    Some revolutionary steps will have to be take place in order to satisfy all the appetites.

@leksimus I agree. With all of the users and content being added to steemit, curation is necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff. But some significant changes will have to be made to the curation function to motivate and reward curators to perform that function. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's good to see various discussions.

Excellent post @hisnameisolllie. I made some similar points here, though it is certainly great to see you develop the ideas more than I did.

That was a very interesting post. He touched on a lot of problem the community at large feel exist.. I know quiet a few users who will be interested to read that. I will forward it..

To be clear that wasn't my post, it was by @anyx. I linked to a specific comment of mine under that post about dumb bots upvoting authors not being sustainable. I agree @anyx did a good job there.

Apologise. I did see it was @anyx. Typo'ed the reply. And I read your comments. This extract, in particular I found interesting;

If you have a piece of land that nobody owns, the incentives can be for everyone to exploit it in every manner and to a degree that the land is ruined. If someone owns it, the owner won't want the land ruined and will most likely define rules and limits governing its use.

That has got me thinking about the Steemit landscape. It's an interesting way to look at things. Things did feel different on Steemit 8-10 weeks ago. It felt like, user were invested in the Steemit project. There is definitely a feeling that exploitation has momentarily taken over, and ideals have been thrown out of the window...

All is not lost by a long shot, however I would be in favour of some small changes to stem this progression...and get the feeling of ownership back!

and get the feeling of ownership back!

You can't because the whales own it. So there is a class war. And if we spread out the ownership uniformly then no one has any control and more over no one has any profit because we are just debasing ourselves to pay ourselves uniformly.

The paradigm is fundamentally broken.

I wonder if the bots' earnings will ever go to 0. I vote whenever I find a good post, without complete regard to timing, and although it often earns me very little, it earns me something. Wouldn't the bots always earn something? Especially since they are running 24/7 and there will almost always be people voting after them.

I think the bot factor here at steemit makes things a lot more interesting and more times than not, makes it a better community for us humans, in my opinion. Thanks for this thought provoking article!

Thanks for your post @kenny-crane. With regards to the 'zero' claim I made. If the race to the bottom continues, and they keep their bot's completely unchanged, this can happen. However the likelihood is that, they will begin to make changes to their voting behaviour very soon.

I do think they will make changes. Perhaps an easy change is to have each bot pick a real random number between 0 and 60 for each vote, and vote after than number of minutes elapses after the post goes live. No AI investment needed, and on average, they may share the curation award rather equally among themselves, other curators and with the authors.

There might be a math equation or monte carlo simulation to determine the exact range for the random wait time and whether the distribution is uniform or follows some other function. But as a start, it may be that a simple random time delay would be near optimal for all concerned. We'll see what happens!

Great article!
I also follow the bot votes, and they are voting quicker and quicker. Last week wang voted around 13 minutes, today it is around 8 minutes. I think if they contunie this race, all of the curation rewards will go to the author.

Good analysis. Clearly you're deep in the bot game!

The big questions around bots that I have are:
1.) Will the whales recognize that bots generally are degrading quality on the platform and turn them off?
2.) Will the bots get so good at recognizing good posts that they become good for the platform?

Given your post, I'm guessing that your answer to 1 is no and 2 is yes?

Yes, that's my opinion @ntomaino

Fantastic post. I see it inspiring "super star human curators" to create super star bot curators, then repeat. I imagine it being a cyclical process.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.13
JST 0.029
BTC 65697.93
ETH 3342.39
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.63