Reward "Suggestion" Taking Into Account The Current Reward Pool (Last kick at this rusty can .. promise!)
Flagging Aside ..
Flagging is something that should be used against purposefully harmful users, to limit visibility and reduce reputation - people who are here to disrupt our community and lower our collective quality by pointless vulgarity & cheating .. this will include spammers, useless trolls, and plagiarists. The other issue that we have OBVIOUSLY! are strong opinions about the share of the reward pool being granted to individual posts, whether that be too little or too much. Well, not so much "too little" ... unless the post has been down-voted and reward significantly reduced by that action - normally small rewards are an accurate reflection of the quality of the post .. no one knows this better than myself! ;-)
That's too littlemuch!
So the problem usually comes when we have over-rewarded posts, as perceived by individuals when considering the quality of the post itself, or if some sort of "vote pattern" is detected that leaves them feeling disturbed. People acting on their feelings for or against a post, according to their own measures, will have a greater impact on the post depending on their STEEMPower Holdings, both positive or negative, and this 'calculation' is hard-coded .. if you have (x) SP, and a post has (y) current reward, at such-n-such-a-time since posting .. yaddayadda, you will be in-effect 'giving' the post (z) reward from the rewards pool. (I probably got that wrong).
Enter @ekitcho!
This evening on discord.steemspeak.com, the Busy.org CEO @ekitcho stopped in. The conversation on @steemspeak was on the subject of the rewards pool .. with resident wizard @inertia having recently implemented a cool new feature, .. the in-chat $rewardpool command, which shows you the current available reward pool - or the total amount in STEEM Dollars that can be awarded to all the posts made, within a given period of time (24 hours?).
People should be surprised at how little is actually available each day .. and this is the main reason the recent controversy erupted - some whales were taking it upon themselves to actively reduce the rewards that specific posts were receiving, in order to sustain/maintain the pool, so it was not prematurely depleted by a small number of users. Admirable in objective, but unfortunately it did not appear so in execution. :-)
@ekitcho posted a link to a brainstorming diagram he made on up-voting .. I chose not to repost the link here as I am not sure if it is for mass consumption. It was rather complex but something jumped out at me ... the word ESTIMATE something I will just run with a ways, before someone knocks me down and wakes me up. :)
New Word! Subggested .. Value ..
So, we read a post, with our wide-range of STEEMPower. When we read the post we see that it currently has a specific amount of reward 'tentatively' assigned to it. We either want to add to that amount or detract from it, depending on our feelings about the post. As @fyrstikken suggested in this conversation on @STEEMSpeak, the total amount that is available in the rewards pool, should be more widely known, so that people can make their % voting decisions.
Sound too complex?
Yes.. maybe. LOL
Just food for thought. Thanks for reading, and thanks to the above mentioned for this minor, not-at-all awe-inspiring trickle of inspiration :-)- @kurbeil
At this point I'm up for anything. Let's try anything. If it doesn't work, we can back up. This idea sounds promising.
having ppl considering the total rewards pool and doing estimate on % assigned looks for me too difficult and complex.
Now one problem of steem for mainstream adoption is friction cause by 3 tokens (not easy to understand the whole ecosystem), and i don't think adding something like that would help us scale in any way ;)
i'mthinking about giving detail on my document, for now it's just a draft;)
Oh gaaaaa.. you sunk my battleship! :-)
No .. no I totally agree. I got that feeling while writing the post, but I was so far in I just decided to complete the thought and post. Who knows, maybe it will lead someone somewhere at some point, that will be of benefit! :)
Heads up! If you guys get this right on Busy.org, we'll all be moving over there ... so get ready! :-)
A sliding scale could neutralize bot voting by making users chose exactly how much of their vote is vested into any action for voting. It would need to be a graphic that registers anywhere from 100pixels min minus borders, and a confirmation ok which could also be used to determine a vote being registered by a real person. Its a suggestion but something which I think should be considered as votes and views are disparaging to any new user.
On second thought this could only work through a front end, the blockchain will still be vulnerable to bot voting/curating, another value would need to added to the blockchain for the source so as to be in compliance with the graphic/sliding scale and the ok confirmation which would need to be universal. I haven't thought this out fully to account for the comment voting which will make that aspect more time consuming, or how much voting power is built up.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Mar 01. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $3.11 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Mar 01 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.