You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 'Conciliation' of the reward curves? / Die 'Versöhnung' der Reward-Kurven?
Like I said before:
Where exactly would you want the slope to start declining ?
This is not a trivial question, at all.
Like I said before:
Where exactly would you want the slope to start declining ?
This is not a trivial question, at all.
I still don't 'want' anything. :) In case responsible Steemians would find my idea to be interesting (which is an essential condition for me to be ready to invest more time to explore the necessary details) I would think more thoroughly about that. It would be primarily a question at which point we would like to limit the increasing rewards - so it would be more of a political than a mathematical decision.
I agree with you that it's not a trivial question.
It all boils down to game theory.
Therefore it is a mathematical question.
It is also a question about what the community wants ...
For example if everybody agrees that very successful accounts should earn as much as possible, there shouldn't be any linear ending at all. If the majority thinks that earnings may be somewhat exagerated, there should be one. The earlier n² is replaced by a linear equation the more equal the rewards distribution will be. If it is too early, it will be very profitable again though to upvote own comments ...
I disagree.
The protocol should always be set up in such a way, that it requires the least amount of trust.
You have to define 'trust' (in what?).
Trust in the other parties, using the same protocol.
Of which parties are you talking? (Sorry for being ignorant maybe ...)
I am not too lazy to explain, but maybe you should look up 'bitcoin' and 'trustless' and maybe 'proof of work'.
Usually blockchains like bitcoin are set up as 'trustless'.
STEEM's reward system is kind of unique, but should also be set up as trust-free as possible.