Proposal Maximum Rewards based on Reputation
Perceived problem: payouts for certain posts / authors are too high.
Proposed solution:
A. Redesign Reputation System:
- no longer purely based on weighted upvotes
- but rather like the witness system (continuous election) where you vouch for an author with your Reputation Stake (not your Steem Power Stake?, to be discussed, declaring that authors post as quality), but with the option to downvote here (in case of abuser, spammer or scammer authors)
B. Maximum Payout per post
- based on Reputation
(for example with rep 70 max post payout = 100 SBD, rep 25 = 35 SBD, exact weigthing to be discussed, but for a new user 25 SBD should be great for a first post, if people not only upvote but also vote for the author's Reputation, follow-up posts can get more very quickly) - reduced by a certain percentage based on number of posts per day
(for example max 75% for second post, max 50% for 3rd post of the day, 40% for 4th etc, to be discussed)
Exceeding the max payout on a post, should return the excess rewards to:
- rewards pool? (to be discussed)
This seems a good idea to me, for these arguments:
- reduce absurdity of rewards on certain post (reflects better on Steem towards the outside world)
- when max payouts are limited by reputation, it seems that the incentive for bot networks to game the system is reduced. Reputation this way is hard to get, but easy to lose, just like trust.
What do you think?
Posted on Utopian.io - Rewarding Open Source Contributors
I am not sure how it would work in practice but at least the sliding scale to reduce spam is interesting but I think 3 or 4 posts a day and then reduction starts. It actually use to be this way but the problem is that a comment is seen as a post. This means that an active commenter is punished. there would have to be a differentiation of a comment from post.
There is a fairly simple way for the blockchain to distinguish a comment from a post. There are tiers of "comments", and there are authors and permlinks and a group of various other attributes that allows a knowledgeable individual to tell the difference between a comment and a post :)
I like the idea of going back to rewarding 4 posts per day. And Keep Comments Separate. Theoretically, comments shouldn't be receiving as high of value as posts, but there are sometimes really valuable comments (ahem, like this one, ahem) =D
I've seen that there has been a lot more self-voting at 100% by dolphins and such lately .. I guess the higher value of Steem and SBD has brought about the greed in some people..
I'm just a little guy trying to make my way ... looking to double up some SBD with some exchanges and reinvest back into Steemit. Great post(s). I started off at @tarazkp's post and ended up here.
Depth=0 for a top level comment. (Which is a post)
There is also a column for max payout of a post/comment, and as far as I'm aware, no-one has got half way yet.
Also I've seen no interface where it can be limited/set.
Kinda reminds me of when I saw all the decimal points on a Bitcoin for the first time - like, what are all them for, these things are worth 10 cents each!
So, max payouts is already there in the code. But at the moment it isn't really used.. I think using it with a limit that gets hit on a regular basis would contribute to the community user experience.
Great. On second thought, I think that chances are pretty slim we will actually see these ideas come to life on Steem itself. But maybe some SMT would incorporate this?
Yes you could be right with SMTs adopting it. I've seen you can set the limit on 'streemian', but nowhere else so far.
I wonder what year we'll hit the $1,000,000 limit? :)
One million dollar for a blog post. Wow, that news would be all over the media, but, ask yourself what crowd would that be appealing to? Normal regular social media users? Or the scammers, spammers and abusers? Maybe some large corporation comes in, buys a lot of SP and dominates this thing from there on..
No, it'd like to see pay-out capped. $15K USD for a make-up tutorial is already a tad wee bit overvalued methinks.
I do not know the answers :)
All i know that the figure reminded me of the time I saw all those decimal points following a bitcoin worth 10 cents.
Room for growth ;)
Also, i think the max blog post so far on Steemit was about $40000.
damn. I knew there was something flawed in this logic. Until the blockchain APIs can differentiate between posts and comments my idea isn't going to solve anything. Thanks for your feedback!!
-edit- it does seem possible to differentiate between post and comment
Hello @fitzgibbon. Sounds good. It seems this rewarding or earning concept and process was the hottest and maybe the major issues here on steemit nowaday. Rewarding author and curator. Attraction to new user to get involved in the community. I think maybe if the community was big enough hopping on the year 2018 and goes on, this problem maybe solved(i guess). And sure does the bots will always win in no matter the rewarding concept been changed. For sure, originality is the winners of all time.
😉
The idea here is bots will easily get downvoted at reputation level, this might actually help.
I like your post @fitzgibbon. I'm not sure that I agree with the slider idea 100%, but it's an interesting concept. I feel like minimizing an individual's content value based on how long they've been on the platform indirectly discourages quality content from new users. Until a user has gathered enough "reputation", they would be stuck with a maximum reward.
While that may help build a greater sense of community in the individual, it will also deter them from providing their "best quality" content until they are more established with a higher reputation. This would then lead (in my opinion) to a request to overhaul the entire reputation calculation. All-in-all, I think this would lead to more trouble than it's worth.. but the idea on its own is sound. Great post!
Thank you for your elaborate feedback, could you describe a scenario in which these ideas would lead to trouble?
for example, look at scenario bernie: guy with a lot of SP and a lot of accounts, not always very polite. With these changes, he could still upvote or downvote whatever content he wants, but max payouts would cap the effects. His own posts, from whatever account he's using would have incredibly low max payouts (since negative reputation).
Reputation is based on upvotes / flags from others. If a whale were to flag minnows just a few times, their reputation would be zero (or negative). This would allow the "powerful" (Steem Power) individuals to have overwhelming authority on who can receive a set vote reward.
Bernie could knock your rep down to nothing because of his massive Steem Power. Will he? Probably not unless you provoke him, but he has the capability.
Before using reputation as a lever, we'd need to change the way reputation is calculated.
That is exactly what I proposed. :)
I saw your proposal.... To be honest, I'm not a fan. That's not to say it won't work. I just don't support it. Opinions are like .. well .. Everyone's got one.. and mine does not line up with yours.
I feel that voicing these ideas can only help the community in the long-run though, so I do support that you and others continue to come up with these various ideas. I'm just not thrilled about the specifics of this particular idea.
In either case, thank you for your post!
Thank you for the contribution. It has been approved.
You can contact us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]
The only Idea I fully support when it comes to the topic is setting a max value for individual upvote/flag. Don't get into complicated stuff. Complexity breeds unforeseen problems. Keep it simple. Make the max individual upvote/flag worth 100 SBD. Don't touch anything else.
This is the only perfectly fair lazize faire solution I've seen. Everything else is either complicated or a form of aggression that benefit one group over another. You could even make the individual vote as low as 50 or maybe even lower. This way whales would be forced to spread their rewards.
For maximum claim on reward pool, use a dynamic value like this example:
Total amount of upvoters(not upvotes) X 120% of max individual vote.
The percentage can change. I prefer something between 100% and 150%
At 100% this means If all upvoters were whales they'd only be able to upvote once a week. The average vote value will max out at the highest possible vote value.
Whales will only face a limit on their max voting strength. They will have the incentive to upvote more people with the reserve voting power for curation rewards. Popular authors who benefit large number of stemians will be able to claim high weekly payouts and nobody will have to start flagging wars.
I present this as a concept only and these 2 concepts are the only ones I fully support at the moment.
if a max individual upvote is 100sbd, and I'm a whale with 1000 accounts, plus I'm using booster rewards services, I could boost a post reward to over a million USD, given enough SP with your suggestions. That is exactly the platform incentivizing undesired behavior in action, or the very thing I think we should combat.
Maximizing value for 1 individual upvote doesn't help in any way, I think.
Also, I don't see how my 2 suggestions: Reputation redesign and capped reward per post are aggressive in any way.
Your second suggestion creates too many complications. Why should I put my best stuff out at first when I'm clearly dis-incentivized?
A system that cannot be gamed is a system of tyranny that control individual actions. One should only control incentives. Please read though this isn't 100% relevant: https://www.dashforcenews.com/6-ways-dash-uses-economics-solve-technical-problems/
I only presented a concept. you can tinker around it. Don't bother for a totally controlled system. Just make the best way the easiest way. There will always be suckers. You can't solve that.
You could even change few number inn my concept into
Upvoter count X 50% max upvote
This kind of damage control won't really hurt anybody involved. We could bring down the number even more.
Upvoter count X 20% max upvote
There is even simpler method of using Max revenue for vote cap only. If it's 5 SBD and there is no limit per vote value:
A whale self-votes 1000 SBD per day = 7000
If the whale needs to receive this payout, he'll require 1399 bots+himself. This kind of behavior is easy to spot and it's difficult to maintain. The authors and voters will know what their limits are.
There won't be a perfect solution. We can only make it difficult.
Hey @fitzgibbon I am @utopian-io. I have just upvoted you!
Achievements
Suggestions
Get Noticed!
Community-Driven Witness!
I am the first and only Steem Community-Driven Witness. Participate on Discord. Lets GROW TOGETHER!
Up-vote this comment to grow my power and help Open Source contributions like this one. Want to chat? Join me on Discord https://discord.gg/Pc8HG9x
7.18% @pushup from @fitzgibbon