You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why a Steem Power reward cap would be as controversial as the block size cap in Bitcoin [FAIRNESS vs FREEDOM?]
Good analysis. A few of us recently also looked into capping curation rewards however found it has weaknesses that allow whales to game the rewards. We haven't recently looked as deep into capping the total blog post rewards. If a large group of steemers see a net benefit but it also seems to be a divisive issue, then it could be proposed to move to the new system for only a short period of time (e.g. 2 weeks) as a trial period.
2 weeks trial of capping total post rewards is well worth a try. Whales would have to spread their rewards out over a greater number of posts. Perhaps implement the cap as being effective after a blogger has already received rewards over $500 for 2 posts, this way every blogger has a chance to score big at least 2 times.
@craig-grant, @ned - this idea is worth looking into. At a bare minimum it will force a spread of rewards to other deserving posts, even if it's just a small effect. That effect will ripple because the handful more that are helped by this will be motivated to continue on and do their best to spread it to others.
Too much power in too few hands right now. That's the hierarchy of government and major corporations. Not a look we want.
The chain supports per-post-cap already, but that option is not shown in current UI so far.
It might support it but when would it be justified to interfere to that degree in the market? Some kind of black swam event or because of some vague perception like fairness? Fairness is subjective enough that it could open Pandora's box to guide development into directions which cost freedom in favor of fairness and that is what I am a bit concerned about.
For people who see Steemit as a tool which promotes freedom, either from censorship or financial freedom, then having this sort of cap would possibly put their dreams to sleep. It's sort of like the American dream sells the United States economy, and in Steem the dream is to get from minnow to whale, to get a lot of Steem Power, not from buying it but from blogging, and people compete in their own ways to try to be the top blogger, and this is good as long as it's fun.
But the problem I see is not enough gamification. I think @ned would be able to benefit Steem more from hiring an expert on gamification to improve the economics in a way that make Steemit sticky and fun, so people want to buy or earn Steem Power for the unique privileges it provides. If we make it harder to earn it would be like dramatically raising difficulty for miners, but then if Steem is really cheap then people who earned their money outside the community, can simply buy ownership while this cap is in place.
The issue with the cap is we already have a situation where post frequency is capped, where payouts are capped at 30 days, and now there is discussion of what could be interpreted as a salary cap? Top bloggers will feel punished for being successful which is not a good psychological element for something which you want to be fun. The perceived fairness gain is great but it's measured in dollars not Steem Power which is the issue, as bloggers who might not even care what Steem is might post just to get easier to earn Steem Dollars.
I do see short term benefit of perceived fairness, but I see long term costs which outweigh it. If someone can find a way to implement it without the long term costs I could change my mind and I offered a solution which I thought was a good compromise, which is less payout in Steem Dollars and more payout in Steem Power, but same reward size.
Please please don't. I'm worried if you set this precedent it could be as bad as changing the Bitcoin block reward arbitrarily or like the max block size, or like the DAO fork. It's going to create the Steemit equivalent to a "class war" which at this early stage is unnecessary for only a perceived "fairness" which isn't truly going to be fair long term.
And honestly I'd probably benefit financially from such a cap because I consistently produce high quality content, but I am more worried about creating demand for Steem Power and keeping Steem fun than focusing on making Steem seem totally fair in terms of dollar value. The best idea I saw was to allow a voluntary shift in percentage from Steem Dollars to Steem Power so we get the benefit of perceived fairness without hurting the Steem Power aspect.
I vote against the trial because I think it would not be worth the negative psychological and political consequences. At the same time if you and other developers are determined to do a trial, then at least produce some statistics so we can learn what we gained from it if anything is gained, but in my opinion the costs long term would far outweigh the short term gains because it would reveal just how much power developers have to do a sort of price control that culturally I don't think the current community could tolerate.
Of course I could be wrong but I would see the divide would be between people who want freedom and people who want fairness. It might be that it's a balance between the two. I also see a divide between people who want more gamification (focus on fun) and people who want to focus on making Steemit a more serious platform. As you know what sides I'm on in this debate, I'm just being fair to say there are a lot of people who would take the opposite sides.
If I am being honest. I would hate to see this tried first. I would genuinely love to see the power contributors (Whales, I just don't like the word) try to work with people who are genuinely willing to curate. I say it that way because I understand it is completely unreasonable to expect everything read by a handful. If that was tried for two weeks first as an experiment, it could change the incentive that requires the solution.
In that two week period perhaps a discussion and solution on what could be done to promote visibility of all material. More than anything it's the incentive:
change the incentive, change the behavior.