RE: STEEMIT HARD FORK: 11 days on from the recent Hard Fork and thing's appear to have settled back to normal.
As explained in previous Blogs the restructuring of the Rewards Pool in the latest Hard Fork was crucial for the scalability of STEEMIT for future growth, and though it appeared brutal at the time it was absolutely critical for the development of the Community.
The impact on the rewards of restructuring the reward pool was a design choice and could have been avoided. The restructuring may have been inevitable, the consequences on the rewards were avoidable. You only tell half the story.
Now that the Hard Fork is clearly in the rear view mirror
It isn't. Posts, votes, and rewards are still way down and take rather more time than the "couple of days" as suggested in steemitblog to grow again. The (avoidable) consequences of the fork are clearly still with us.
Are you doing an exercise in fake news?
If what you say is true, then it's quite unfortunate, as the developers should have foreseen the negative impact a greatly diminished rewards pool would have over a month or so on the site, especially considering that implementing a remedy would seemingly have been trivial.
I'm not a programmer though so maybe there were other difficulties involved and it wasn't as easy as we think? That perhaps on balance the cost of a diminished rewards pool over what looks to be at least another 2 weeks or so is still lower than the cost of implementing a satisfactory code that would have circumvented this problem?
No, I don't think it would have been all that difficult. Few things are trivial when you are in a rush to get a hard fork out, but difficult, no.
BTW, for what it is worth, I am an IT architect and I still code in anger, and for this one, I take Abit's word for what it would have taken to avoid the consequences on the rewards.
Well what's done is done I suppose
Hopefully it's a momentary oversight and not a sign of consistent incompetence. I can tell the team is working hard and sometimes things like this can slip by you or at least make you underestimate their significance
You are milder than I am, but that is not necessarily a bad thing 8-). What irks me most is the lack of communication about this. Had they been transparent and open about this, I would have let it slide.
100% agree
I don't see what kind of solution could have been done trivially. We could have artificially created more Steem, but that sets a precedent which pretty much everyone wants to avoid, violating the social contract on the supply schedule would have been very contentious.
I guess Steemit Inc could have donated some of their own Steem to the reward pool to keep it stable, but that's a pretty significant expense for them to cough up 30 days of rewards.
I'm not a coder but whatever the expense might have been to Steemit Inc, it seems like that would merely be the cost of doing business. How much value was lost in the accounts that have left? Its no easy thing to get some quality accounts to come over.
In addition, although many of the accounts may have left due to the money, I also think they left because of the way it all went down as well.
Very roughly:
Don't start calculating a 30-day moving average until the 30-day array is filled with a set of values other than the initial zeros, or just fill it with guestimates based on the preceding 30 days of daily reward pools instead of zeros. Uninitialised moving averages always start at about zero, but that can be remedied.
Any extra Steem needed, if any, could have been tapped from the huge slush fund called Steemit.
Yes thank you! Exactly right, artificially seed it with the average from the prior 30!
After 11 days there is enough data now to suggest that we are through the worst of the fallout from the Hard Fork. The rewards pool is filling up slowly and the blogs, votes and comments have settled back into a normalised range. The Blog was merely a suggestion that all the doomsters were wrong to think it was a bad move. The Hard Fork was probably the best thing that could have happened. Stephen