Is There Still Uneven Distribution of STEEM Vests?
There has been much talk as of late about the problems on Steemit. Problems such as excess self voting, voting circles, bots, leasing STEEM, spam and plagiarism. All of these problems Steemit has created its self, because where money is involved so is greed. It is human nature.
I know people will say, oh Steemit isn’t about the money. But let me ask you a question. If there was no financial reward on Steemit, would we still see the levels of bot, self voting and voting circles that we see now?
One thing that’s common in a lot of the conversations is the initial distribution and mining of STEEM. I think it is safe to say that many people believe the initial distribution was limited to so few, it is now difficult to get a balance between Whales and Minnows. It’s taken me a while to understand what went on at the start, and also get my head around what is going on now. However this problem can be tied back to human nature and greed, and voting bots and voting circles. Why? because large Vests of STEEM are involved.
You see some people got in on the game early and they made a considerable sum. The problem with this is that there is now an extreme uneven spread of power. But is this the only problem or is there still uneven distribution of STEEM?
Basis of Analysis
Using Power BI, I have connected to the STEEMSQL database. I connected to the VOProducerRewards table, one of the new tables that @arcange added a few weeks back (Thank you!) The data was pulled at 23:12 GMT 08/12/17
The SQL query used was
Select
*
From VOProducerRewards (NOLOCK)
From here the data was further modeled using DAX.
The aim of this analysis was to get an indication of the amount of STEEM distributed via mining and to get an indication of the spread of STEEM between miners.
Mining however ended, and new STEEM is now generated by witness blocks and a portion of the new STEEM generate goes to the witnesses.
High Level Overview
In total 17.53M SP or 35.97bn vests have been distributed to miners/witnesses. 59.5% of vests (31.42bn) was distributed in 2016 and the balance 40.5% has been distributed this year.
In total there were 14130 witnesses/miners however in 2017 there have been 1880 witnesses/miners that have received producer rewards.
The first column chart shows how vesting shares were distributed over time. We can see in early December 16 that there was a drop in rewards and the curve became linear. This reflects changes made by Steemit in how producer rewards were calculated.
The second column chart shows the active number of miners over time. We can see here a drop off at the end of March 17. This is when mining ceased.
More Detailed Analysis
Zooming in a little on this data, and if we plot the number of miner/witnesses in the columns and the SP by line
Just taking a sample of this data, lets compare May 16 with May 17 and also Nov 17
All being equal, from May 16 to May 17 the average SP earned per witness/miner increased. However since May 17 this has decreased. Just to note the SP and Average SP values are shown in thousands.
But all is not equal and vests are not distributed to Miners/Witnesses equally. Under the current distribution method, a witness in the top 20 gets to sell all blocks as is awarded a fixed amount for each block. After this the number of blocks seen by witnesses depends on the placement in the witness list, and again a fixed amount is paid for each block.
Top Witness/Miner Earners ALL Time
Top Witness/Miner Earners 2016
Top Witness/Miner Earners 2017
Above are 3 tables sorted by the SP earned by the witnesses/miner. The first table is for ALL time, the second for 2016 and the third for 2017.
It is worth noting on the 2017 table, all of the top witnesses are showing with a first block found of 1 Jan 2017. This is not actually the case, this means that they were active in 2016. It is also worth noting that the majority of these were still active at the time of producing this report.
It is also important to point out at this stage, that when STEEM was mined at the start, miners tended to have multiple accounts so that they always had an account in the Que. Therefore some of the witnesses listed can be grouped back to one steemain.
A perfect example of this is @abit who currently sits 3rd in ALL time SP earnings as a miner/witness. @abit has openly admitted owing other accounts in a post about taking advantage of the Liquidity rewards. Accounts that can be ties back to @abit include @anyx. Therefore if we combine both of these accounts @abit is the highest SP earner in both years.
Lets put this in a little more perspective
Below is a table of the top earners on Steemit for the month of October. The value shown is total post rewards in SBD, so author and curator rewards earned on the post.
And below is the SP earned by the witnesses also in October.
The price of STEEM in October ranged from $1.52 to $0.92 was and the price of SBD was between $1.58 and $.92
I would also like to share this GIF showing the movement of Witnesses over the last 45 days
Conclusion
The aim of this analysis was to get an indication of the amount of STEEM distributed via mining and to get an indication of the spread of STEEM between miners. From the analysis above it is clear that a considerable amount of STEEM was distributed to a relatively small number of miners. However I also posed the question
Is there still uneven distribution of STEEM?
Now that you have seen the data, what do you think? And what, if any, alternatives do you suggest?
I am part of a Steemit Business Intelligence community. We all post under the tag #BIsteemit. If you have an analysis you would like carried out on Steemit data, please do contact me or any of the #bisteemit team and we will do our best to help you... *
You can find #bisteemit on discord https://discordapp.com/invite/JN7Yv7j
Posted on Utopian.io - Rewarding Open Source Contributors
superb job on the analysis. a number of the whales which had pre-minned earlier are making a difference by supporting projects which helps to onboard more steemians and also to keep the retention high on steemit. there are those who choose not too but for those who are ... your assistance and presence are truly appreciated and felt within the community.
I have upvoted this because of the positivity. You are right, they are doing work supporting project with help onboarding and those that do this work should be thanked
Approved.
thank you @paulag for this fabulous analysis and i think the question here should be about Decentralization.
You can contact us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]
Really I agree with u. May people says they are not here for money but in fact they are @paulag
Money is a critical factor on this platform. Yes, we can have fun. Yes, we can like each other. Yes, we can make great content. But ultimately, if there were no monetary rewards on this platform, 99% of it's users wouldn't be here.
We'd also have a lot less bots :)
I think that we could definitely have fun, like each other, and make great content anywhere. In fact, there are places on the Internet where making content is both easier and more pleasant (and I'm specifically thinking about Medium's post editor, here).
The opportunity to play with largely fake money is an additional aspect of fun, I must admit.
(I'm not going to lie. Part of why I'm here is the fact that comments are actually properly indented in threading. It's so rare I feel like I am compelled to support a platform that bothers.)
Dear @paulag, many thanks for this analysis, these type of posts are most interesting for me, to get a better understanding of what really going on. A lot of it is still a big mystery to me..
Concerning Steem distribution, you are only looking at the top earners, but the total distribution is the most interesting I think. What is the trend, are the rich getting richer and the poor poorer? Because from what I have seen, in fact we are moving (slowly but surely) to a more evenly spreaded distribution, which is the right direction, I think.
I have done a follow up post that tries to address your question @fitzgibbon
the more evenly spread the better for ALL users really
It's the rich getting richer and the poor leaving the platform
I'm poor. I'm staying. I choose not to be poor forever.
But, yes, the retention rates aren't great. That's a serious subject to address and it would be very beneficial to Steem if some tweaks or new features would help keeping new people here. But, as long as mass adoption hasn't occured, we share the daily reward pool with only 30k people, that's more for each of us. When there's 1M users, your individual percentage of the daily reward will be a lot less (but Steem would probably be worth a lot more).
My conclusion: every Steem you earn NOW, while the platform is still in BETA and there are not many people here is worth at least 50 times its price soon. So I'm here. I'm staying. And I'm holding.
I'm poor too, I just have a little SP because I purchased it. I do see Steem as a token that should appreciate in value and like you stated, we are still on the early side when you look 5+ years out.
I do not think most people see it as we do through. There was a stat for new users which stated something to the effect of 10% of the new users are posting after 90 days. That is 9 of 10 quitting the platform after 3 months...
I think many do not want to put the time in to build up their blog and they see the large monetary rewards going to the whales/dolphins 'clicks'... This group have their posts on the trending and hot feeds most of the time. Rep >60 or over......
Couple of reasons:
Let's not forget that:
Discoverability and surfacing are terrible on Steemit.
Communities don't really exist.
The tag system is poorly implemented and has no way to actually create remembered slices through the content nor a way to create compound slices through the content.
Effectively, there aren't any tools to manage the experience of a social media networking site that have been developed over the last 10 years which made social media networking sites big. The basics are still missing.
It is also true that quite a lot of the system seems to be deliberately obfuscated and made more complicated than it has to be which makes everything else that much worse for a new user.
Better ways to explore the content would help everyone, but not least newcomers to the platform who are trying to get traction and looking for a niche that they both enjoy and which works for them. Everything that stands in the way of people on the platform being able to find content that they like keeps the platform from growing.
I agree with you 100% on this. This has been brought up many times, yet nothing has been done.
There is only one solution - the impossible one... People should start behaving as the theoretical, decent human beings. Like the posts you like, don't like absolutely pointless posts even if those posts belong to the top authors and the natural selection would do the rest.
That right there is the solution to all human problems. :)
Isn't the idea of Steem to be a meritocracy based on quality of content? Even with no shenanigans, wouldn't power naturally flow to the creative and diligent? Does the current sytem meet that ideal? Or is that creativity wasted on gaming the system?
A meritocracy only works if all work gets chance to be fairly judged. That simply isn't the case here. Informal and formal communities, voting circles, cliques, and groups of people who take advantage of the system have made this impossible, as if usually the case with humans in and community. In that way Steemit is really truly a social network, and there may not ultimately be a great solution for this.
The system has been tweaked a few times, but inequality always happens, and indeed, it is based on merit to a large degree. Unfortunately though, there are many other factors at play. Should early adopters be rewarded? I believe they should, but to what extent? One thing I would like to see would be more reasons for people to use Steemit other than the financial reward. The sense of community is pretty poor in my opinion, even within niche subjects. And yeah, most voting is completely unnatural.
This sort of begs the question:
Do you believe that all people share the same interests and a common idea of what "quality "is?
If so, then you may believe that the distribution of resources on Steemit does, in fact, describe a meritocracy. After all, wealth and power to naturally flow to people who are best able to work within the system.
But if you believe that what I think is quality and what you think is quality may differ because we are individuals who have different means of judging what we think is worthwhile – then you may have a problem with the essential authoritarian assumption of Steemit-as-arbiter.
I would contend that it is impossible for a system which makes the assumption that everyone not only does have the same idea of what quality is but should have the same idea of what quality is to meet the ideal of a meritocracy based on the quality of content. We have taken an essentially subjective analysis and assumed that it is equally applicable to all agents within the population. To that end, an aggregate measure of those with the most power in the system has been taken to represent the content with the most quality.
All systems exist to be gamed. That is the nature of systems. If you create a system in which someone can be rewarded in any currency, whether it be a digital commodity, or attention, or applause – people will be interested in gaming that system. Some of those people will be successful in exploiting the system.
A well-designed system takes into account that such exploitation is inevitable and works to minimize the impact on individuals who don't want to be part of it.
This may require a complete rethinking of the mechanisms which underlie your system.
I like when my fans and friends open up to me, I feel like they are trusting me. We should trust and believe in people, life becomes impossible without trust .
– With Love , Kitty Thomas
Follow me Now ==> @mrsh986
Please , Don't forget to " Upvote "
I think it all has to do with the way people reach Steemit.
Let's take a look at that:
People who get here are usually searching for crypto related platforms or on how to earn crypto.
People appear on the portal by searching through the avenue "Desire" which is trying to sate their "need" for this particular topic.
People aren't joining because they are looking to share their ideas or get into a friendly community, they are joining to earn.
I'm not saying everyone is like this, but most of them are.
So we're attracting those who are more prone to game the system than the general public.
The "smartass" size of the pie in this sample is way bigger than in other communities, let's say Facebook.
Just my opinion.
We also had a regular report running on the STEEMSQL database to identify and report on one of the common complaints: self-voting.
However, one of the users who was regularly flagged in our reports started to consistently downvote every post... so we've had to stop!
this tends to happen
Super!
Loving the gif, what a nice addition to an analysis blog :)
Hey, where' is @aggroed in the list for October? Was he not a Witness then?
Oh I wish I was in early with a mined account - these guys are set for life!
I uploaded the wrong image, I cut off the top few in October. Now updated :-)
ahh :D
No fly's on me ya see :D
Thanks!