Suggestion: Creating a New Curation System to Incentivise Upvoting Minnows and Creating Long Lasting Content (Part 1)

in #steemit4 years ago (edited)

Edit: Made more follow-up posts
Case studies for algorithms
Rewarding 7+ days posts (suggestion fundamentals)
Feel free to resteem for more awareness if you like this suggestion

Hi! In this post we'll have an in depth look into an idea I've been trying to pitch for over half a year now! I've made about 5 other similar posts but hopefully this will be the one to get some attention! It's a proposal to change Steemit at the blockchain level to make dolphins and whales more likely to actively curate for lower rep users. How?

Edit: in-depth cases for rewards system here

PS This post will be split into multiple parts as I've been typing this and working on the ideas for a couple hours now and I'm still nowhere near done. I'll finish with the rest of these posts in the coming days!


  1. More curation rewards for high rep vote for low rep
  2. Self-voting will be counted at 0 curation rewards
  3. More curation rewards for being amongst the first to vote for a post that became popular in the future
  4. Reward users for upvotes on content older than 7 days (smaller rewards given once a month)
  5. Curation rewards consists of half SP and half SBD as well
  6. Reward pool will be split 50/50 between creation and curation
  7. (Random thought): dedicated rewards pool for certain topics, e.g extra $1,000 per day for a week into the tag "gaming" so posts with this tag would receive extra rewards, can be used to promote certain communities.

This idea aims to:

  1. Bring more support from bigger users to smaller users, rather than just whales upvoting each other
  2. Encourages voting for GOOD content, not just any content
  3. Discourages the use for voting bots and self voting (which I'm guilty of)
  4. Rewards users for providing information that withstands the test of time

Table of contents

  1. A new Steemit rewards system
  2. In-depth explanation and formula for high rep upvote low rep idea + example + why remove self up-vote curation
  3. In-depth explanation and formula for early upvote idea + example
  4. In-depth explanation and formula for rewarding upvotes over 7 days
  5. Why split curation rewards into SP and SBD
  6. How it supports each of the aims

A new Steemit rewards system

From what I understand, there is a daily rewards pool on Steemit (75% of inflation) that is to be given out to the community for creating and curating. I think that this is were author payouts come from, but curators share a percentage of that 75%. There is also a 15% of the daily inflation given out to "SP holders", which I'm not quite sure what that means.

However, that aside, let's assume we have 75% of the daily inflation of Steem to work with, otherwise known as 100% of the rewards pool. I propose we split that rewards pool 45/45 between creation and curation.

So the payout you see on the bottom of the post would be halved, but the author will receive 100% of that amount. So author payouts will be reduced by approximately 40% assuming they're receiving the same amount of upvotes they were getting before.

However, effective curation would be awarded a lot more, I'll do the maths later!

The missing 10%: rewards pool for content upvoted past 7 days! I'll explain how this will work further down! Basically, at the start of each month, all users who have posts older than 7 days gets paid out rewards. These rewards will of course be a share in the 10%, thus smaller than your regular posts!

Voting effectiveness: I'm not sure how it works at the moment but I propose that each time someone upvotes you, you receive a share of the rewards pool proportional to the vote power used. For example, someone with 1000SP upvotes you for 10% when he is at 50% vote power, you get 50 shares. If there are hypothetically 1000 shares altogether today, you receive 5% of the rewards pool. Then the next day you get 100 shares of the rewards pool but there were 10000 total shares because more people voted, therefore you get 1% of the rewards pool. Then you get all your rewards on the 7th day of the post! Same system for curation rewards.

Explanation of how reputation can affect curation can affect curation rewards

Basically, the higher your rep, the more curation you get for upvoting someone with lower rep!

So if someone with 40 rep upvotes someone with 25 rep, they'll get more rewards than someone who is rep 30 upvoting for someone who is rep 25. The idea is someone with more rep has made more Steem via Steemit, thus should have more SP. However, this could potentially be counter-productive for someone who is low rep but an active curator, so this multiplier will be quite small.

An example of the formula could be M = 0.0001R(R+10) + 1, where M is the multiplier and R is the difference in rep.
So if a rep 50 upvotes a rep 25, he would get a multiplier of 1.0875, in other words 8.75% more curation rewards.
If a rep 75 upvotes a rep 25, he would get a multiplier of 1.3 = 30% more curation rewards.
A rep 75 upvote would likely be a lot more than an upvote from someone with rep 50, thus should receive more curation rewards for finding a minnow to upvote! Also, a massive upvote should bring a lot more attention to the post, thus putting it in hot or trending, thus increasing visibility for the minnow. The whale and other original curators will receive heaps of curation rewards based on the early voting algorithm I'll explain later. However, the difference in rewards is not SOOO drastic that it would detract lower rep users from voting at all!

Note: anything under reputation 25 is considered to be reversed, e.g rep 20 = rep 30, rep 0 = rep 50, rep -17 = rep 67 (@berniesanders). This encourages users to be careful what they do on Steemit as being flagged while being on low rep could snowball their account downhill more as others are less likely to upvote them.

Explanation of the early voting algorithm

There were a few objectives I had with this algorithm and after a few hours of trying to come up with something with my limited high school level maths skills (I'm starting uni this year!). I'm sure someone would have a better algorithm/formula (idk the difference between these 2 terms), but you can use this as a start if you'd like. It's not perfect but I've spent hours on it so here it is!

The algorithm aims to:

  • Incentivise voting for quality content
  • Incentivises voting early to bring more attention to quality content (put it on hot/trending)
  • Reduce people abusing curation rewards by voting for whales with tons of followers who always get a ton of upvotes
  • Not punish voting for whales so hard that people don't vote for whales anymore
  • Each post's payout is equivalent to the value people perceive it to be worth

Part 1: Basically, the more upvotes on a post the more curation rewards everyone gets
Part 2: Basically, the earlier you upvoted, the more curation rewards you get. This is to prevent people from upvoting posts with already heaps of upvotes to game the system + early voters are likely the reason the post gained visibility
Part 3: Reduce rewards for whales with high rep and high visibility already
Part 4: Reduce rewards for whales with high upvotes already, hopefully this won't hurt minnows who has one massively upvoted post, perhaps change to average upvotes but that punishes people for creating consistently high quality content. This part will need revising.

Test cases for positive multipliers

  • Upvoting 1st on a post with 1000 upvotes gives you an increase of 2776%
  • Upvoting 500th on a post with 1000 upvotes gives you an increase of 2456%
  • Upvoting 999th on a post with 1000 upvotes gives you an increase of 323%
  • Honestly, I think I'm pretty happy with the curve of these results. When you multiple them with the negative multipliers it'd make more sense.

Test Cases for negative multipliers

  • Upvoting someone with a reputation of 75 and a maximum upvoted post of 2000 upvotes will incur a penalty of 95%
  • Upvoting someone with a reputation of 57 and a maximum upvoted post of 50 upvotes will incur a penalty of 77.5%
  • Upvoting someone with a reputation of 25 and a maximum upvoted post of 0 will incur a penalty of 1%
  • A little too generous for newbies. Might create a system were people create new accounts and post once for massive curation and author rewards by upvoting it first with and making it visible thus giving it more author rewards.

Putting both multipliers together

  • If you upvote first on someone with 25 rep and that post gets 1000 upvotes, you get around 2747% increase on your curation rewards
  • If you upvote first on someone with 75 rep that gets 1000 upvotes, you'll get around 35% increase on your curation rewards.
  • Putting them together, I think I'll need to tweak the negative multipliers to give less penalty to whales and slightly more penalty to minnows to avoid gaming the system with new accounts and so the whales don't starve.

In closing

This will be it for today's post. I've spent a lot of time on this and if this gets enough attention, I'll work on the rest of the proposal! I know the 2nd algorithm I have isn't perfect and will need more work! I will outsource that to a random steemian to help me out if you'd like a challenge! I've commented about the problems I perceive in my algorithm above.

Feel free to comment any suggestions or concerns you may have and I will aim to answer everything. Thanks for reading if you've read this far!

Follow me for more interesting articles and your chance to win free Steem EACH WEEK, EVERY WEEK! 26.78 Steem given out already! Click for more details!!

Click Here to Buy Steem Directly With AUD to Power Up Your Account!


You are putting a lot of thought and work into this. I hope some of the whales and people in charge would see this.

Unfortunately I don't see @ned is upvoting this.

LOL yeah, I am! This is the 5th time I've posted something like this, last time being November last year. It never really got much attention so i just kinda gave up haha. Hopefully a whale can see this and share it!

However, these proposed changes quite adversely affects them, but benefits steemit as a whole in my opinion!

I like many of your ideas, in particular rewarding older posts and your take on self-voting.

However, splitting the pool 50/50 between creators and curators is not a good one imo, as it would shift a large proportion of the reward pool from content-creating minnows to voting orcas/wales, and thus make the already existing inequality even worse.

Yes! I feel like rewarding older posts is very needed!

Splitting 50/50 in fact in my opinion would create the OPPOSITE effect! You're right that it might shift more curation rewards to orcas and whales, but only if they're promoting good quality content from minnows. Since minnows were getting next to nothing in post rewards, a single vote from a whale could be worth more than their last 100 posts!

If whales fail to use their steem power effectively, they will receive very little (albeit more than before) and they will suffer from lower post rewards as the post rewards will likely be split amongst many more people, rather than just the top whales!

If you're interested, here's some case studies of my algorithms !!

I believe the break down is 75% author/curation, 15% infaltion to SP holders, 10% witnesses

Interesting proposal.

I am not a fan of reducing the author reduce that too much and the content (quality) could diminish. They are already reducing it in the next hard fork...we are going to see the author not get paid until 15 minutes compared to immediately.

Giving others incentive to upvote those with lower SP is a good idea. I am not sure Rep is the best case use...although it could well be.

I would go with the MVests more as a barometer to base the system upon.

The point of reducing author rewards is to spread the rewards out! I think by reducing author rewards and increasing GOOD curation, quality content is promoted and if you're producing consistent good quality content, you should see a massive increase in reward as curators earn more from curating your material! As for the next hard fork, where is this information? I have not heard of this!!

If by MVests you refer to Steem Power, then I think it may not be a good idea. That discourages minnows investing in Steem (buying Steem with bitcoin to power up) as it would make their content less appetising to curators. Rep (the number, not the level) is directly proportional to the amount of SP you've earned via posts, thus reflects how many upvotes you've gotten (plus the weight of the upvotes).

Thank you for your feedback and your resteem, you're a man of your word! Consider myself an avid follower of yours from today :)

thank you for providing your thoughts. this is what we minnows need :)

Thanks for your comment!

Great idea mate, let's hope this post gets the visibility it deserves and gets some witnesses' attention for their comment.

I particularly like your idea about small rewards for posts older than 7 days... It's slightly different to the main topic at hand but it's definitely something that seems to make sense to me. If you discover somebodies blog and they wrote a post a month ago that you thought was amazing and worthy of an up-vote, in the current system there's no incentive to do that and idk why.

Just because content is old doesn't mean it isn't worthy of an up-vote or is no longer relevant. I can see why they implemented the old system for simplicities sake... but your proposal is better imo.

Same goes to your idea about rewarding curators with 50/50 SBD/SP... I don't even know why this isn't a thing. Why wouldn't you want to encourage SP growth by giving half of the rewards in SP, just like author rewards.

Anyway, thanks for your contributions :)

YES! These 2 points are something I personally very very want. I self vote myself a LOT, a large reason is because SBD is so high right now, and upvoting others and seeing curation reward in SP makes me sad when I know I could've gotten so much more if half was in SBD and then buy Steem and power up!

The thing about 7 days, basically have a 10% rewards pool for it. Curators gain no curation rewards and can only vote with a maximum of 10% of their power, regardless of how much SP. Each month, the 7 days+ posts share the 10% rewards proportional to the amount of shares they have (using the shares system I mentioned before).

If you come across an article older than 7 days and want to show your appreciation to the author leave a comment on the article. If author comments back, upvote their comment as a way to pay them.
I too like the idea of leaving rewards open past 7 days but there are some negatives to that should be addressed. Leaving rewards open past 7 days could cause a lot of spam rewards. It would also complicate the checks and balances we currently have on posts. Currently you can upvote a post til 6 days and 12 hours but after that it is downvote only; they do this so that people can't upvote their things @ 6 days 23 hours 50 mins and steal a huge reward. The 12 hour downvote rule gives time for community regulation on shit posts. There are people that watch the expiring posts with high value for content.

Some really good ideas here, but I think you'd be able to get more attention, and perhaps people "on board" with your idea(s) if you broke them down.

It looks like you have a grand vision, and have put a lot of thought into how to make Steem/Steemit better - I'm starting to have these thoughts too. But concentrating on a single aspect is likely to get more attention, as it's not as much to take in at once.

For me, the idea which captured my attention was the proportional voting power, incentivising those with higher SP/rep to vote for those with lower SP/rep. This would hugely incentivise newer visitors to the platform, helping Steem/Steemit grow.

I do think you'll come up against some resistance though, as those with the most power are likely to resist giving it up (but thankfully there are whales who do care enough too).

Once you get traction with one idea, then introduce others.

That's a good point. This whole thing seems long and hard to read and kinda messy. Maybe I'll try repost this but with just the first point! But the problem is, I need to have all 3 main sections of this together for it to really make sense.

Yes I agree, it's good but too long especially the math which I can't really get into... :) I like the summarized points though, all except #7 the 'random thought' of giving more help to certain communities... who decides which community gets it? I see potential for abuse, or at least lots of complaints from people. :)

I'm a total nube at this stuff and new on Steemit. I was lucky to get a boost up by my friend @aggroed, but I've been struggling with many of these thoughts myself. When I joined Steemit (properly, about 4 weeks ago), I brought more than 60 #unfuckers with me. I've been trying to help them all out, to resteem and upvote them to help them get views and get their Steem legs firmly planted... and yet my own posts get very few views, so my own "power" to help others is hugely limited. This is a major problem, and in my opinion, a major stumbling block to KEEPING good content going, and feeding into Steemit. It's very easy for the "minnows" to get downtrodden and disappointed when they cant' get more that 2 or 3 views on any of their content, and can't get enough power behind them to be able to contribute more to #Steem. My group of #unfuckers has huge content/value to add to the Steem community, yet already I'm watching some of them turn away from Steem because they see it as Mission Impossible to get anywhere themselves, or to be able to help other UnFuckers or Newbies on Steemit.

And this isn't just about my own group. I've been trying to help a lot of minnows that are climbing into Steemit from Nations like #Nigeria, and #Venezuela because these people absolutely NEED our help- not just to be seen, but to be able to live and EAT. THIS is what Steemit is about to me. A community working together to help itself grow, and to help those who NEED help to get a leg up and to be able to prosper.

1 unfucker badge tiny.jpg

I don't know enough about the people who started #Steemit, or those who are 'at the top' to make assumptions where this platform is concerned... but in general I would say things in the world won't change until enough of our consciousness as a whole is changed on a personal level.

IF that is any indication of the way things need to evolve here as well... then, I suppose those of us who are willing to have a go at it will keep on climbing that steep incline in an effort to make a difference. I've been on here for a little over two weeks and I love it, but I have to admit with the amount of views I am able to achieve on my posts, I am beginning to think about how to gain enough SP to get more views on what I feel is good content... as opposed to focusing on the good content I know I have waiting to be published here regarding many, various topics.

I keep catching myself thinking that way because I want to put out good content and have people actually see it.

I hate FB, I have since we were all pushed off of the MS platform. I never wanted FB and I had to join it. Or be forced to connect only with local people, which is a no go because too many are not in alignment with anything an awakened or awakening person cares about. Only a small handfull get it, and they each have a lot going on so we barely see eachother.

I have met a lot of wonderful people here on Steemit! Some, @aggroed and his friends @ #PAL and @minnowsupport included have been super supportive and helpful in my getting started on here! (You know you have too @daniarnold! ;)

I have entered some contests and other things, and it is a slow go, but it's getting better! I just have doubts that anything is going to change dramatically in any community so long as the same way of 'being' as what created the other structures still exists among humanity. This may be the platform which allows for that much needed shift in consciousness to take place. If not, it will be another stepping stone in realizing why humanity keeps ending up with the same shit different flavor.

Going back to FB is like shooting yourself in the foot. (I'm still on there but invest as little time there as necissary because so many people are just energy drains it isn't healthy to try to do good works on there long term.) You get sucked into the mind control ... and even the most aware struggle with that one. Anyone can get on there and pretend, or outright suck energy if they want but those sort of people are the ones that love the place! (The zombies also love it because they know no better..) FB is there to keep people in a rut. It does so very well. I'd hate to see #Unfucker members give up and stay at FB. It's loosing battle I've been dealing with for years.

Gawd there I went again rambling on... Lol! Thanks for sharing this post with me @daniarnold!

Steemit on the other hand has the potential to be a huge part of that "new way* we need to build... and I think it could remain so for a long time if it works better than the banking systems we have learned only benefit a few, the rest being thankful for the dropped crumbs.

#Unfucker too! :)

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by cryptoeater from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.

There is also another way to solve those problems which is to let authors decide how much % they want to give to curators
This would also cut the need for voting bots

I honestly don't even fully understand the current curation system. So let me first fully get that before we change anything. But seriously, I first need to understand the current system to judge of these changes might be good.

Anyways you look like the right person to solve a few of my mysteries. Could you please have a look at my questions?

Not bad. I will give you a like.

I hope some of this gets implemented at least, something really needs done.

Solid post! It's nice that people get paid for the content they put out here, and I definitely don't want to see author rewards go down. At the same time though, we do need to find a way to encourage better curation. A lot of communities have developed around filling that gap which is great, but if this is going to not bleed out new users we're going to have to get something more orangic here to get minnows with good content "discovered."

good post..... Please... please 👉here you go buddy here is my vote ..follow and upvote i like your content and i always reward back people that follow and comment and upvote.👈👌👌👌👌

I like the idea of motivating people with high SP/Rep to upvote 'smaller ones' :-) I'm not knowledgeable enough with all the variables to be a critical fellow thinker on the way this should be done. I do however believe it would be good to have an open panel about topics like these regularly. Maybe on one of the radio shows on Discord? Would be cool to hear what others who deeply understand the workings of the system and reasons behind certain division formulas to lay out their arguments and maybe inspire those who can actually make decisions.

Thanks for writing it down and adding to the Steemit discussion!

I'm not quite familiar with Discord radio shows! You will have to guide me haha. If you're interested, here's some case studies of my algorithms!!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.06
JST 0.040
BTC 35832.76
ETH 2364.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.95