You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: YAVAP - Yet Another Voting Algorithm Proposal - Or What I Actually Understand By Proof O Stake
Several issues, moving money requires active key which could be a security concern.
Tips introduce micropayment costs which lowers engagement.
Potential solution i find is to make all payouts greater than a particular threshold a lottery ticket instead. This makes things binary and means that most votes have no impact on payments.
Thanks for your input.
Active key can be an issue, I agree. But it can be mitigated.
What do you mean by micropayment costs? If I send Steem/SP to somebody else directly, I should pay a fee? I was under the assumption that transactions are free in the Steem ecosystem.
The lottery ticket sounds unusual. Can you detail? Especially how it will increase engagement?
.2. @dan means that you have intrinsic cognitive threshold on making any spending decision. This cognitive cost can be higher than the value of your decision. Thus engegement will be significantly lower. I do think that we should not move in this direction
It has been addressed in the article, when I say people will think ten times more when they will vote somebody. Also, there will be realignment in the user base, the speculative user base may go, leaving place for people who are looking for contribution.
Engagement comes after adoption, IMHO. You must first have some adoption in order to have somebody to engage with. At this moment, adoption is in much more distress than engagement in Steemit, because of the psychological effect of downvoting (specifically the fact that "your" money may be taken away by a whale). The debate, the drama, etc, all this may create engagement, but if you put money on the table, and as a result of the debate and the drama, people "lose" money, they will stop coming in.
If I understand correctly, you want to introduce even more entropy with this lottery ticket. I don't think it goes in the direction of my proposal. Authors need to have predictability if we want them to stick in to the platform.
If there is some place where we could introduce some entropy that could be curation. I wouldn't make it totally random, though (the algorithm will always be questionable) but I will put a threshold: only the first 10 articles will earn curation rewards, equally split among all the articles, equally split among all voters. That will maintain the incentive to keep voting, even if it costs something. It's still a "lottery", but at least creates engagement by pushing members to "fight" for the first 10 places (or "x" places, 10 is just a number).