You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why didn't facebook implement the dislike button?
I believe that I already asked you this question, but do not remember that you have answered me.
If 100 000 users will say... that some post is helpful and an author should revive $1, how much this author should receive. $1? Curators during voting cannot know for how many users something can be useful.
Or lets say, that 10 users will say, that some post is really helpful and an author should receive $100, how much the author should then get? $100?
If I didn't answer before I probably didn't understand the question.
I think what you are saying is the more people liking something the more it should be worth. But this of course could be a simple cat meme. People can judge real value for themselves, I don't believe the value depends on how many people valued it. If it really was helpful then users would vote a lot more than $1.
If the 10 users who say that a post should receive $100 have a lot of Steem Power, then the author may receive that payout. However, if they are 10 minnows, then they likely wouldn't receive near that amount.
I am unsure, but imagine that if the sum of all the median payout votes for each post was lower than the total value of steem in the reward pool, then every author would actually be recieving a little more than the median.
Maybe @demotruk can clarify if I'm right on that.
No, if we imagine this implemented, the median threshold would always apply. What would happen is that the Steem reward pool would be able to have a daily surplus. That surplus would mean that more payouts would be possible in the future instead of consistently paying out the same amount. This could enable Steem to sometimes facilitate much larger projects via a single payout.
Would that not be prone to abuse? If whales could intentionally accumulate a surplus for example, and then use one post to vote extremely highly on, bringing all the surplus rewards to one account?
The same amount of money is being paid out in total. The whales could just as easily extract rewards among many posts than one large post. As usual, large payouts will always require high levels of consensus (as long as downvotes are allowed).
IMO this kind of voting is against every User Experience guide. As they say "don't let me think" is what users are used to currently on the web. People do not like making decisions. Especially so difficult with numbers. Also... I do not like that fact, that with that system everything will be about the money. I am strongly against that.
We need to figure out how to design a system, which will allow us to calculate fair number for each post but still having minimal input from user.
I think the problem, if it is just one problem, is bots. No matter what the design, the bots will jump on any small imbalance and create an increasingly smaller number of highly upvoted posts. Somebody wrote a post a month or two ago about the real value on social media: attention. If upvoting required some hugely ugly and inelegant capcha, then @user will know for sure they are giving attention, and perhaps give more thought to curation, and the bots could go .... somewhere else.
[EDIT] And filling in the ugly capcha could be rewarded by a very small payment from a faucet.
I would love to lose the bots. I wrote a post myself a good while back about the attention economy and so did my brother @demotruk. If the bots cannot be stopped then it needs to be profitable to vote manually. Which would mean people putting real subjective thought into how they vote - something bots don't do as they follow a set of rules and don't really evaluate content. I think if manual curators are less predictable then the bots will have a harder time chasing the rewards.
I would like to see this idea fleshed out. As I currently understand it, there is no way to prohibit bots (because of the open API). "people putting real subjective thought into how they vote" is extremely ill defined and if it were to work in any way like the Steem we have, it would need to be worked into the game theory.
The problem is that we as people are pretty predictable. I know there are a few amazing AI bots out there, like @biophil 's is supposed to be, that do not just chase whales.
In my view, we need to offer alternative bots that are not purely interested in rewards, at least as an option. That was one of my goals with my own bot 🙂
This is not possible on the Steem blockchain, but could be on Steemit.com
So the bots could easily get around it, as things stand right now?
@richardjuckes yes, it's impossible to prevent bots on the Steem blockchain.
Personally, I don't think it is desirable to stop bots either.
[Thread depth reached]
Yes. A Capcha is a web front end "wall". For it to work, the only way to access the web service must be through a managed website, or with managed access to the backend. Steem is accessible directly to the backend.
I'll actually be posting about it today and laying out why in detail.
Another solution will have to be thought of, or another way of thinking about the problem.
The normal users are minnows. If the developers create the user interface, users could choose to only see an "upvote" which on the blockchain would automatically choose the highest payout for this users vote.
Whether we like it or not @noisy, steem is about money. Always has been, always will be.
I agree, there are UX concerns. For that reason I have suggested that for new users we could continue to have upvotes and downvotes as normal. It would simply be that the client would choose a high default recommendation for upvotes (for example a standard minnow upvote could provide a $1,000,000 payout recommendation. It would take an enormous number of minnow votes to ever actually reach this threshold).
My view of Steem is that it is a stakeholder governance system, designed to facilitate the collective decision making process of giving out money. Perhaps I am in the minority but I see Steem as inherently a monetary system, and that's not a bad thing.
Just to add, 100'000 users could really like a cat meme, which brought a smile to their day. That is of course valuable. But is it more valuable than than if somebody found the cure to a very rare disease..? Imagine there were only 10 users on steemit who had that disease and they all benefitted from 10'000 more smiles in their lifetime...
I don't think it's fair to say that something that is helpful to more people is more valuable than something that helps just 10 people.
I agree with you, the value is extremely subjective. One personz $1 is another personz $50. When the money isn't coming out of your pocket, the amounts could be wild.
You bring up a really good technical point, how to decide the actual payout. It should obviously be SP weighed, regardless of how many votes (as it is now), but then we're really just deciding a proportion of the reward pool. So it would be
(total reward pool value / total suggested reward value) * this suggested reward value = this actual reward value. The actual reward value would almost certainly never be the suggested.The counter argument to this is that a consensus could probably form along similar lines as it has now. In the beginning the rewards would be all over the place, and then as people get used to the system and more importantly, get used to the payouts they get, they will probably gravitate towards similar values.
This might be a really bad thing or maybe not! It's really hard to know, but I have the impression @dan (RIP) would not have agreed. Maybe that matters less now than it ever did. You could add to this @dragosroua 's suggestion that we have "skin in the game", i.e. it also costs the voter to up or down vote. I am speculatively certain that this would keep rewards much lower, but might even drive us to "undervalue" posts.
I think the problem with both of these ideas is that they have unknown group behavior outcomes, but then again, we're here to try things out right? 😄
100,000 users saying that a post should be paid out $1 is extremely strong consensus. It sounds like $1 is almost certainly to be an appropriate payout in that case. Steemit is not a tipping system where we each pay for the value we receive, it's a governance/budget system where we pay out as a collective. I think you are wrong that the collective cannot come to good decisions here, the collective is extremely good at coming to decisions like this when using a median, the phenomenon is known as "The Wisdom of Crowds".
It would require that the users have the stake to reach that threshold otherwise. The threshold only applies when the r-shares based payout would reach it otherwise.