You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: UserAuthority (UA): explanations, applications and implications
Your diminishing returns mechanism can be tricked, has some unforeseen side-effects, and is very computationally-heavy because it would require a running timer function and the complete vote-history of voters and votees, all in real-time:
- in case of a very wealthy (high-SP) account, it could spawn - let's say - 100 self-owned bot-accounts, spread-delegate X % SP to Y % of said bot-accounts, and re-delegate SP to Z % of said bot-accounts once the diminishing returns become unprofitable. Once the timer function is recharged, it could re-delegate SP back to the Y % bot-swarm, successfully circumventing your proposed mechanism.
- in case an honest accounts has gathered a decent supporting audience, the honest account's content cannot be properly rewarded due to diminishing returns.
My HF22 proposal upvote_reward = UA * SP works far more effectively and efficiently to honor the intended use of your own proposal, because the only thing needed to successfully combat the upvote/downvote actions of said very wealthy (high-SP) account it to let the community collectively** unfollow** that account.
PS: I'm not trying to "shoot down" alternative proposals, like you have proposed via diminishing returns , but by design the UserAuthority simply outperforms other mechanisms.
I am not really convinced yet, that to 'honor' the amount of (weighted) followers would solve the problems, even if it is a really interesting idea.
For example whales wouldn't unfollow each other because of the mutual consequences, but if a minnow decided not to follow anyone anymore it wouldn't have much impact.
I wonder why 'honest' content could not be properly rewarded anymore in case of diminishing returns? Everybody still could upvote every other account with full strength, but just not so often anymore per day (he still could do it but then would earn less).
And concerning delegations you know my opinion already: I see no real reason for that - the positive effects of delegating Steem power are overestimated, the negative effects (vote buying as a consequence) underestimated. I would reduce it respectively make the conditions harder (for example extend the timescale in which one could use delegated Steem power again).
I've yet to test it, but I'm pretty sure the combined UA-weight of all minnows exceeds the combined UA-weight of all whales. One minnow follow more or less indeed doesn't matter much.
What about honestly liking and upvoting 30 well-thought of comments from the same user? Or what about liking and upvoting a lot of jokes from the same user found at the @traf account (including user @traf as well)? Diminishing returns in that case also makes no sense, those exist already btw, via the voting power "battery" mechanism!
PS: once again, I don't want to "shoot down" your proposal, but UA (if/once hardforked anyway) solves the exact problem you are addressing, it really does! And if you're not sure, just try to think of scenarios, of anticipated user behavior on that scenario, in case UA would be deployed system-wide.
No problem, I like that there are many different ideas, the more, the better. Keep me informed about the progress of your idea ... for example about some testing (in case that's possible).
I am somewhat stubborn, though, too. :) I don't think it is really necessary to upvote 30 articles/comments of one and the same author per day. You can upvote a few and if that is still not enough you can write something nice instead. :) Can you really write so many good articles in such a short timescale? I can't. @trafs short posts are a matter of taste, but in case you like them you may agree that the work load to produce them is not really high - so if you upvote only 2 or 3 per day that may be OK (of course that's only one possible opinion).