Net Neutrality and Curation Rewards
What is Net Neutrality?
According to Wikipedia, Net Neutrality can be defined as follows;
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Basically, net neutrality suggests that network service providers should treat all network traffic and content equally without favoring some or blocking others. The reason this principle became an important public issue is that big ISPs and telecommunication service providers were trying to prioritize and degrade the flow of certain types of content over the pipes they control. Internet openness could be seriously damaged, as a result.
The net neutrality principle has been widely accepted as the foundation of an open internet in many countries and is continuing to gain support.
Europe's net neutrality guidelines seen as a victory for the open web http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/30/12707590/eu-net-neutrality-rules-final-guidelines-berec
Net neutrality in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States
Does net neutrality have anything to do with the Steem network?
As the Steem network is not an internet service provider, the notion of net neutrality does not seem applicable to the Steem network. However, if we look at it, and its components, from a broader perspective, we can identify how we could extend this concept to the Steem network.
Steem is a sub-network, based on a blockchain, that operates on the internet. It is formed by a network of Steem nodes that observe the Steem protocols. The core component of the network is witness nodes and PoW nodes producing and validating blocks.
Additionally, the Steemit, inc organization and its employees in the Steem network constitute key elements of the network. They develop and maintain the network protocols that underlie the functions of the participating nodes.
Furthermore, there is a social networking application that operates on this network structure. The facets of which are its users, their content, and their activities.
So, we can apply the concept of net neutrality to the Steem network as follows:
The key component factors that produce and maintain the Steem network should exercise neutrality toward the users, content, and activity on the network.
Net neutrality and curation rewards
Based on this application of net neutrality, assigning curation power to witness nodes, PoW nodes, Steemit, inc, and Steemit employees is inherently not neutral.
One may argue there is no direct relationship between exercising curation power and content discrimination, or that witness nodes contain all content regardless of their owner’s disposition toward specific content. However, curation power is the power to promote the visibility and value of specific content on the social network.
Through curation power, network neutrality on Steemit becomes dependent on the competing ethical attitudes of node owners and Steemit employees. Imagine if the meaning of net neutrality was determined by the employees and owners of Verizon and its infrastructure. Would you consider that true neutrality? In the interests of true neutrality, reducing the possible influence of bias on the promotion or demotion of network content is the only way forward. The current system of curation power rewards inherently compromises the principle of net neutrality.
Dual income structure and division of labor
The Steem developers, or Steemit, inc’s employees, are receiving their paychecks, and the witness and mining nodes are already receiving significant rewards from the network. And most of them are super-whales. Currently, these whales also participate in the content curation process, receiving a substantial amount of curation bonuses for their participation. Some witness node owners post about their node’s activities and receive rewards for blogging too. In addition to this, they can vote on their own content which guarantees them a higher likelihood of increased income through posts with self-inflated values. The reward amount that these super-whales are collecting from the network already comprises a significant portion of the aggregate rewards of the network.
No one would argue that these individuals should not be rewarded for their contribution to the Steem network itself. However, the question remains: are these compounded rewards fair, efficient, and neutral when you look at the network as a whole by considering the impact on content and user activity on the network?
Witness node owners serve an important role from multiple perspectives. In addition to facilitating the production of blocks, they enable a larger ecosystem for network expansion. Additionally, they promote Steem to broader audiences and new markets. Simply put, they promote growth. By embracing that role, they limit the time they have to curate all of the content on the network. While they can increase their account’s participation in curation by running bots and optimizing them to increase their income, this does not improve the content of the network as much as the function of their nodes improves the integrity of the network itself. Spending time maximizing the value they receive through curation hinders the progress of the core role as witness owners that is already compensated paid by the network protocols. It is neither efficient or ethical.
This applies to Steemit, Inc’s founders, developers and other employees as well. Their focus should be on improving network protocols and core business logic. They should not waste their paid time on curating content. Given that, we should not continue to support an incentive structure that enables compounded rewards by gaming curation within the social network application with infrastructure rewards. Ideally, the curation process should be allocated to other individuals that can be more dedicated curators and users of the social network application.
What can be done right now?
Suspend the curation voting power and rewards of witness nodes, pow mining nodes, Steem inc, and its employees.
Only allow voting power and rewards to become useable once they no longer occupy those roles.
Expected Effects
- Witnesses and developers will focus more on their core mission and tasks.
- More curation rewards will be allocated to dedicated curators and a wider base of active users.
- It will be easier to gain new curators with diversified interests, and the diversity of content will improve.
- The Steem network will reflect the principle of net neutrality.
This post is an improved version based on the Korean version that I posted earlier on steemit.com
https://steemit.com/kr/@atomrigs/net-neutrality-curation-rewards
Interesting idea. However, I do not think that they would willingly suspend their voting power at this point in time, especially after they pushed this price so low and now many people are leaving. I think this is a good principle to strive for.
I do have another idea, multiple sections where one is based on the amount of upvotes and another where it is the same as it is now, this would be easy to make and have some of your desired effects.
The upvotes count is getting pretty much meaningless in Steem. There are too many bots with many duplicate subaccounts. I think decentralized social networking services should rely more on decentralized reputation to avoid sybil attacks instead of depending on coin amounts that each user owns.
Basically the early adopters and the favorites of these get rewarded significantly. Yes there must be a Sybil resistant account creation system in the next iteration of this kind of thing.
I really appreciate your ideas.It is not fair for newcomers at this tim and the Dev should concentrate on the improvement of the network backbone rather than the editorial work. However, as the popularity grows, the price should go up and the down trend would soon be reversed.