Having trouble understanding

in ua •  4 months ago

Why in the world people delegating to @steem-ua?

Is it a new smart upvote bot or a new reputation algorithm/experiment?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

And I for one cannot understand why in the world people would ever use your Lightsteem copycat when there's Beem, but I wouldn't sourpuss-blog a post about it getting another few upvotes on it via some curation trail after quite some hefty Utopian-io upvotes.

Because your Post title explains your lack of understanding, let me explain to you again what I already clear as could be explained in the Intro Post:

UA = our influence metric
UA-API = our API broadcasting UA data to Registered Partners
@steem-ua = our Algorithmic Curation Program using UA data

The fact that @steem-ua is growing so fast due to massive community support because our Algorithmic Curation is pretty good apparently didn't went by you, but you probably did miss that @steem-ua is also algorithmically curating & upvoting approved @utopian-io contributions, including your own.

I'm sure the fact I disapproved your witness recently has nothing to do with this post. And you can be sure that while you keep contributing quality @utopian-io contributions, @steem-ua will continue to upvote them.

Other than that, have a good night, Emre.
Love @scipio

·

!popcorn

·
·
·
·
·

What's that? Do I look like I would like that? :D

!popcorn

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

that looks tasty!

·
·
·
·
·
·

!popcorn

·

I have 700+ accounts’ witness approval with a total of 6700 mv. Do you think your 0.6 mv stake will make any difference, and I just post because of this? That’s quite an ego, buddy.

Btw, this was a good demonstration about your lack of professionalism, I wont even bother to reply your false accusations like the bullshit you posted about lightsteem.

As far as I understand, they made a new reputation algorithm and also run a voting bot, although I don't get how these two are related. Do they vote according to the sp delegated like other bidding bots. Then how does the UA play here?

I'm kinda confused as well.

·

They land upvotes based on your UA score in different tiers. (based on your amount of delegation.) But I don't really get the idea.

UA is a centralized solution on the top of a decentralized blockchain. The code is not open-source, it's technically possible to just drop the score of the people they don't like. (I am not saying they're doing it or they will do it, but it's possible and there is no way to audit.) It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Regarding the algorithm, @lextenebris has a couple of pretty good replies on the announcement thread.

·
·

It's a vote buying bot.

They will tell you that it is a sophisticated independent application which intends to reward the most active and best regarded members of the community for their contributions. They will tell you that UA is a complicated, computationally expensive metric to determine who are the most active and best regarded members of the community.

And then they will take your SP delegation and offer you a number of up votes per week in exchange for that delegation, without any concern for what your content is, really what your UA is, or anything else.

They're selling votes.

Now, they also purport to scale the size of those votes based on your UA, but that's not going to make a bit of difference because UA is functionally equivalent to a ranking by SP with a couple of small changes.

All of those people delegating SP to @steem-ua? They are making a rational observational choice about what is currently an accepted vote buying service, jumping in on the ground floor, and hoping to do exactly what is obvious the system is intended to do – get up votes for money.

That's the truth. That's the observable game that we can empirically derive.

Now, I fully expect for someone to come along and down vote this comment or call me out as a liar, even though I am simply telling you what you can read for yourself in the original announcement. And if you have any amount of curiosity, I encourage you to go read those original announcements and the commentary because you will feel like your curiosity is rewarded.

The only smart thing about this up vote bot is that it has been couched in such a way that the usual suspects aren't immediately jumping up and screaming about an up vote bot, which is in itself brilliant, but can't last forever.

·
·
·

That pretty much just opened my eyes. I think I got sold because of the nuance between what project purports to be versus the paid reputation system through less sophisticated vote selling.

In actually, the fact that the users leveraging the unsophisticated vote buying system are likely at an advantage for greater UA scores due to the tendency for vote buyers to have generated relatively greater engagement and follows.

I feel like I am in quite a quagmire. On one side, the principle of vote selling, sophisticated or otherwise, is something I fervently opposed for a long time. One the other side, I grieve being left behind again while the damn vote buyers, even the abusers (I have noted plenty), whizz past me in reputation in which case my flags no longer affect theirs.

Reputation I think we all can agree is a broken metric but the functional aspects in regard to downvotes is what troubles me. I can send good flags against abusers for plagiarism and the like but, if they have a higher rep, and they end up engaging in revenge flagging, I will be the one with the disadvantage. Still yet, I don't think that concern takes precedence over my opposition of vote selling in general.

The final thing I am considering is the capability of this system being able to supplant unsophisticated vote selling. Having the "lesser evil" so to speak. I'd rather there not being any vote selling at all but with the development of off-chain bidding the activity is likely to become much more difficult to track and programatically thwart by someone that's interested in that prospect. I don't know. Maybe those damn utopian authoritarian ideals coming out again. :P

Posted using Partiko Android

Loading...
·
·

UA is a centralized solution on the top of a decentralized blockchain. The code is not open-source, it's technically possible to just drop the score of the people they don't like. (I am not saying they're doing it or they will do it, but it's possible and there is no way to audit.) It just doesn't make any sense to me.

You should set this text in first post. Straight into the point.

·
·

Think you have valid concerns. Due to it being closed source, the mechanism through which it is determined seems a bit obscure and frankly the parts I think I understand are a bit questionable imo.

Here is one part in part in particular I find somewhat troubling:

It is possible to expand on the UserAuthority mechanism by adding weights to manually assigned trusted "witnesses" in the form of content moderators. In a Utopian-IO context, a contribution post

I hope we can trust the judgment of those making the assignments above and there isn't any under the table boosting going on. Although I am optimistic about an alternative to rep, I am wary about their being a lack of transparency in the process.

In the post, it states being a top witness helps ones UA score as well but these days being a top witness isn't always a matter of merit, hard work, contributing to the platform but it seems it is becoming increasingly favorable to those that support big business namely vote selling opportunists and the main sponsor of that activity who is extremely influential in who are the top witnesses. That is kind of bullshit imo but I'm just a minnow so what do I know.

Anyways, I have delegated a small amount of SP to try out their algorithmic upvotes / curation system but am undecided on the greater implications. I plan to do further research and evaluate further the wider impact of the project and whether it will lead to further centralization if power that exists currently.

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·
·

Anyways, I have delegated a small amount of SP to try out their algorithmic upvotes / curation system but am undecided on the greater implications.

@anthonyadavisii perhaps you'd like to take a peep to this post also and after that, if you feel like it and wonder where I got my conclusions to write that post from and why I coincide with @lextenebris viewpoint big time. You can ask me whatevah you want. };)

·
·

Thanks for the info. I’ll check @lextenebris’s post later. I checked my UA already. For now only top 100 is shown for public right? I agree with you, unless it’s made open sourse.

·
·
·

Yes, currently only the top 100 are shown openly but you can sign in in order to get just your singular metric. Their argument is that the sign and keeps the load on their extremely computationally heavy metric from overloading the servers, but they also say that continual access to the UA API will be granted to "UA partners," which is really just coded language for "people who offer us SP or other resources in exchange for access to the API." They're going to be selling it.

What's the real reason that open access to the UA architecture isn't available? Because if anyone could get the data without logging in or being a partner, anyone could observe what the total ranking is at any time – and they want to monetize that.

·
·
·
·

¡Your singular metric! Hahahaha good one Lex!! ;o)

·
·

The code is not open-source,

wait what? really? I must say, I didn't really bother to check, but I assumed it was. I can see no legitimate reason for not releasing it as open source.

UA is the algorithm.

@steem-ua is the POA (proof-of-algorithm - I'm not exactly sure if that's actually a thing, but i found the name quite fitting) which essentially is used to refine the algorithm and showcase that UA works.

And yes, in my opinion, @steem-ua is somewhat of a smart vote-service. Maybe even a basic income type of vote-service.

And you don't have to delegate to it, nobody is forcing anybody ;)

Also fyi - I didn't delegate for the votes but to support the UA algorithm development. Noting is born/created perfect. There are always kinks & bugs that have to be figured out and the algorithm/code has to be polished/refined.

If you don't think the project is useful in it's current phase, no problem; but try to give it a bit of time.

Evet hocam bende birsey anlayamadim bu olaydan. neyin nesidir?

Maybe both, with new fancy way for upvote

·

Indeed. Looks fancy.