RE: YAVAP - Yet Another Voting Algorithm Proposal - Or What I Actually Understand By Proof O Stake
I really like this as a possibility. 😊 I don't claim to have to foresight to see all the implications, and I presume there will be some side effects if it were implemented, but in particular I like that it should cost something to vote.
As I see it this move away from the company / sharedholders analogy a little bit, as obviously in a company it does not cost the shareholders to vote on any motion. The analogy has it's limitations here on Steem, and that voting should not be "free" of impact on investment is perhaps something that should be explored.
I think you've laid it out really well here. Now I'd love to see the reactions of those with a bit more understanding that me, like @abit, @dantheman and @l0k1 in particular. I have a suspicion that tipping cost would drastically change the incentive "game", but if you're right, it will be for the good.
Thanks.
Having skin in the game drastically changes any decision, not only voting. As it is right now, voting not only doesn't cost anything, but it's wired in such a way to bring rewards, so it's some sort of "investment" without really putting money on the table.
As long as anybody gets some money out of it, there's obviously no problem. Everybody's happy. But when the same "lack of skin in the game" manifests under the form of flagging, where you don't have to pay anything to vote and you just take out some potential rewards from a post and redistribute them, well, everything changes.
Steemit is already an amazing concept and I think we sometimes forget how advanced it is. My intent is to improve - if possible - an already functioning system by reducing the entropy and increasing the predictability.
Isn't that what SP investment is supposed to be though, money on the table (really in the safe 😉)? What is problematic is that this investment keeps you free of cost after that point completely, allowing you to use this one time "payment" indefinitely to vote and gain what rewards you do from then on.
So it's a difference of perspective. The current system is heavily biased towards investment as the desirable action, not "good" voting. In fact, from what I understand from the whitepaper, any and all transactions on the blockchain are good for the system, just so long as action is happening.
Agreed.
And a valiant contribution! 👍 Looking forward to seeing it discussed in more detail. 😁
Precisely. SP buys you influence in the entire ecosystem, in an "abstract" way: if you have this amount of SP you can move this amount from the reward pool (I'm oversimplifying, obviously). But once you get into a 1 to 1 interaction with another member of the system, there's a different level. Especially if the direction of the vote is down, because you, as a downvoter, are negating a string of votes that happened before you and which already generated results. I know the results are temporary, the final payout consensus is calculated after a certain interval, but they are still representing the will of all the voters before the downvoter.
This situation can be mitigated by a direct contribution, from the user's pockets, something that will supplement the "UBI" that gets printed every day in the reward pool. Or so I think, we shall see :)
I think they would be mitigated yes and it sounds very sensible. I'd like to see what the other effects are though, beyond what you outlined.
I just can't get on board with the idea that
I see it as something which has not yet generated results. But perhaps it's best to agree to disagree on that perspective for now 😅
Of course, we can agree to disagree. :)