You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Enhancing Steem's 'Proof of Stake' Model Through Expiry/Renewal Of Witness Votes Based On Account Activity Levels (Revised Based on Community Feedback)
inb4: Account-keepalive and Witness-Vote-Refresh service.
The activity proposals dillute what vesting steem power means in terms of a proof of stake and tries to replace it with proof of activity. A proof that is easy to fake. If recentness is important in our economic model then why not either erode away vests for inactivity or 10x the reward pool to inflate away the vests of the inactive. These would have the same effect.
I do like the proposed improvements to the witness page though.
Thanks for your comment. The suggestion here does not dilute the value of steem power in the context of witness ranking, but rather it introduces a counter balance to ensure that community engagement is given due consideration when assessing proof of stake. 'Stake' is not purely financial and, indeed, economically speaking it is time and energy that are the primary investments humans can make - with finance being a secondary parameter. The vests will still have the same effect, provided that the social aspect of the 'proof of stake' is also present.
While it is possible to circumvent the suggested tests for activity given enough intention to do so, it is likely that the suggested changes will have enough of an impact to be worthwhile regardless.
'Recentness' does not need to apply to upvotes for posts since upvotes do not have a persistent life span in a continuum and they only effect posts for 7 days - so I take it that your idea of eroding vests in relation to recentness would apply to the witness votes.
I'm not clear why eroding the vests would be preferable given that that approach also relies on measuring activity which is open to the same potential manipulation that you highlighted here already. While having an 'eroding' effect on vests in general might cause a desirable outcome on witness votes there isn't really a need to provide such an elaborate equation when simply deactivating votes according to activity levels serves the same purpose.
If I understand your suggestion correctly, the only practical difference between your model and the one I suggested would be the nature of the velocity of devaluation of the votes, where yours would be a curved reduction to zero and mine would be an immediate jump to zero.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. The proof-of-stake is the financials. I'm not too sure how we'd measure the proof of "social aspects" in a way that's computationally efficient or is not gameable. It is a dillution of the power of vests - in your proposal in favour of proof of "social softy stuff". It's not a dillution of the numbers but a dillution of the effect of the VEST in the proof of stake. That might be desireable, but it is a dillution.To be fair you are saying somthing like your idea is gameable but many VESTs would not game.
My example about eroding vests instead is not meant to show my preference, but to hold up another example to show the why dilluting the power of VESTs is maybe not so awesome. Side issue though.
(Emphasis mine)
That's a massive set of assumptions. On what do you base these?
tests for activity -> please define. I will show how they can be circumvented easily.
it is likely -> evidence please? I know it's crystal ball gazing, but there's got to be somthing to justify placing a likely probability on it.
enough of an impact -> really? And things could also be exactly the same, or not much different*
worthwhile -> I think this is the crux of the matter. Would it be any different? How do you know the whale voters aren't happy with where their witness votes are placed, even if they aren't regularly posting.
My evidence, that people will circumvent/game, is that people are already using tools to manage their time on steemit - so my two proposed bots to beat the "social aspects" and to reset witness votes are easily predicatable behaviour. More specifically, to support my claim, their is a quite large use of auto voting things already being used on steemit; trails, SteemVoter, FOSSBot, MB-SYV.
What say I grant that 10% of the top fifty inactive whales let their votes expire. What difference does that make to the make up of the witnesses?