Is DPoS Just a Popularity Contest?
I've been busy traveling lately (D.C., San Fransisco, Las Vegas), and noticed I've been dropping in witness rankings from #2 to #19. Some larger unvotes started a couple weeks ago:
With some more activity today:
@berniesanders can probably take credit for today's activity with his post here, and it seems he's back to flagging my posts and comments. He did that a while back for a couple months, downvoting my stuff right before payout so others wouldn't notice and counter with their own upvotes. I used to have an emotional response to this behavior, but it doesn't bother me much these days.
I think flags and downvotes play a role as well expressing your opinions on who should be a witness and who shouldn't. I've talked about flags quite a bit here which links to other posts like this one here. If Bernie wants to stay anonymous to continue flagging and (what I consider) trolling, that's up to him. I've asked him to come on a live video chat to discuss his views about Steem, SteemitInc, and me as an individual (he considers me a pretentious douchebag), but he always declines my request. The invitation is still open.
What I did find interesting is a reminder of how much DPoS may just be a popularity contest. For a while I was ranked as high as number two out of all Steem witnesses. That made no sense to me. There are many other amazing witnesses providing very real value to the ecosystem with the many projects and contributions they make. I've had a number of people thank me for my contributions as well in terms of providing trusted commentary, education, context, and understanding of the larger cryptocurrency space which I've been doing since 2013, but does that really justify a number two spot? If a witness position is mostly about trust in securing a node, I guess that could make sense, but even then there are other trustworthy witnesses out there who may not be as active as I am on chain (while some are far more active) and might deserve that spot more than me.
So how are token holders supposed to determine who is trustworthy and who deserves a witness vote? Few people will read through the 3+ years of Steem content some witnesses like myself have published, so it comes down to a general sense of popularity which is constantly shifting and changing. Some take issue with my announcement in April of 2018 to work with eosDAC or my work with FIO which I started officially 5 months ago, and yet my witness ranking kept increasing. In my opinion, tribalism is not a good thing, and my involvement in many different cryptocurrency projects is exactly why I bring unique value as a witness. It's why I sold my business in 2018 and why I don't think I'll ever have a traditional job again.
My work with eosDAC is why some looked to me for leadership during some drama with Steemit, Inc powering down their stake and helped me come up with some possible solutions like a SteemDAC. But that was then and this is now. When I see hugely valuable witnesses like @jesta (the creator of Vessel, SteemDB, and so much more) no longer in the top 20, I have to wonder what the votes are based on.
Maybe in the end, it doesn't really matter as long as the blocks are being secured by trusted nodes. As long as token holders continue to vote based on what is in the best interests of securing their investment, then we should be okay regardless of who is in the top 20. I'm glad to give perspective from many angles, including EOS which, with the launch of Voice, will be (IMO) one of the first real competitors for the Steem blockchain. Competition is good and healthy. I hope we learn from all chains and implement what we can from them to improve and grow.
As always, I'm available as a witness to answer questions you have. Though I have been busy with consulting, I will continue my passion to help educate people about cryptocurrency and how it can be used to improve human wellbeing. I still see Steem, today, as the most viable functioning blockchain solution for everyday users to enjoy. Many of my friends who shared my excitement about Steem have come and gone, but I'm still here. I plan to stay. This is still my home on the Internet.
What do you think about witness voting? Is it just a popularity contest?
If it is, what can we do to change it to more actively reflect its purpose of voting in trustworthy node operators?
Oh yeah, and what the hell have you brought back to Steem from all your time with EOS? Are you involved in anything on this chain? Don't try to use tribalism for your convenience. Where the hell were you when Dan Larimer was busy "re-imagining Steem"?
You know what's a good mutually beneficial contribution in crypto? Here's an example:
Ether Classic's Saturn Network working with Cardano.
You know what's a good Steem example?
@yabapmatt and @aggroed bringing Steem Monsters to other chains like Tron, so Steem can have some more reach instead of sitting in the well.
Let me ask you again. What have you brought back to the Steem ecosystem all this time in EOS? NOTHING.
Better question: what have you done in crypto space since 2013 that is beneficial across multiple projects as you claim?
If no one knows about it? Why?
Are you gonna be one of those witnesses who play victim or get offended when people starts to say things because nobody knows what the hell you are doing in the Top 20?
Careful, your toxic tribalism is showing, hahaha!
The fact you are so quick to defend your tribalism and attack this witness earns him my vote.
It's funny you mentioned @yabapmatt and @aggroed as I've been working with them along with @appics on a project that does bridge the gap between EOS, Steem, and Appics.
I already mentioned the SteemDAC concept which I still think could benefit how the Steem community makes decisions and moves forward with community funds. I do think DACs are the future and they could be done within Steem as well. Not sure what you mean in terms of Dan. Please clarify if you want a more detailed answer there.
I haven't written direct code as I've been more focused on advising projects based on my experience. A big part of that is educating people about blockchain and cryptocurrency which is why I think I've done so well as a witness as many who don't yet understand this stuff find that really valuable. Being involved in multiple projects helps me be a better educator.
And no, I'm not playing victim or getting offended. If people want to call me a piece of shit, that's up to them, but I find it ironic coming from bernie relating to extracting wealth from the platform considering I've been running the exchange transfer report for years and I see directly how much value he extracts to exchanges.
People should and will vote however they want.
And one of the said guys unapproved your witness.
I can't tell if that's really funny, ironic, or really sad.
Doesn't bother me in the least. I couldn't explain why I was in the number two spot either.
@abusereports downvoted your comment.
What a shitshow people like sanders, ngc and markymark have made this place.
If even you, as a witness, get this type of abuse I'm thinking voice is the much better option for non-whales now.
Under the Steem model, one person with significant stake can significantly impact the user experience of everyone else. I think Dan saw this problem and tried to address it in various ways with flag wars and such, but ultimately it's a reputation and identity issue combined with a token (or power/value) distribution problem.
There are no perfect solutions. PoW has issues with centralized hashing power. DPoS has issues with token voting collusion or just "the rich get richer" problem. Ultimately it comes down to how willing we are as a species to cooperate. If we can't do that, we will not have freedom and voluntary interactions.
Well really our system only requires you sell a few people on your value as most peoples' vote makes very little difference.
when some were upset about EOS, I didn't mind that some of our witnesses were on both platforms and thought it would be good for Steem witnesses to have a variety of experiences.
With that being said, it has been a long time since I've seen anything that says you are working for Steem. That might be a communication issue on your part or it could be a reflection of the truth.
Best of luck in whatever you do, the space is always growing and changing and sometimes projects no longer fit our needs and vice versa.
Thanks for the level-headed response, @whatsup. I've spent hours helping with projects like this, but that's not really based on the whole Steem ecosystem, just one project within it. I agree with you, if people find other witnesses adding more value than me, then they should clearly change their votes to reflect that. I've said the same since the beginning.
I think the reason you are seeing a current reaction is due to the up and coming hardfork issue, and the difficulty and stress it is creating. There has been little clear communication or even evaluation on how it will impact the community. Many are stressed and having little visibility during this time, is challenging for those who have been working on it, trying to describe it and ending up getting the angst of the community.
Of course they would be upset with those who seem disengaged and uninterested.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I followed quite a bit of those discussions closely and they are some of the same issues we've been discussing around here for many months (rewards curve changes, downvote pool, etc) without ever coming to a clear consensus on them. At some point it's useless to continue debating the same things over and over again. People will be upset no matter which direction things go, but I agree, I could definitely be providing more value to the community during this time to explain things and help people understand the changes coming.
Aren't EOS and STEEM both DPoS? 🤔
Yes, they are. I've seen similar issues in EOS voting as well as BitShares voting. It's an important discussion to have.
Whatever the reasons looks like it's co-ordinated.
If only Steem was genuinly economically decentralised it wouldn't be possible for a handful of people to manipulate the top 20!
Maybe someone floating around 21-25 has been 'bought' and they're being promoted to ensure HF21 goes ahead... as you say, you're undecided!
It's a good question - how do you decide on a good witness? So many variables - but I don't think having a working life outside of Steem and not spending your life colluding on Discord should count against you.
Posted using Partiko Android
I pulled my vote, it wasn't easy, but because I just wasn't seeing the level of enthusiasm from you for Steem than I once saw. I still vote for you on EOS though :) - I think you are a great witness/block producer, but as you said yourself, there are plenty of deserving witnesses that are putting a lot of work into Steem, now.
That's absolutely fair, and I think enthusiasm does play an important role. As long as people are voting for good witnesses, I'm happy.
Yes.
(Edit)
However, when it comes to voting for witnesses I don't look at what they have done. I only look at what they are doing. You get 1 month under my system.
Also, I believe @berniesanders is a failed Democratic president candidate. He is definitely a controversial charavter, but subtle suggestions to dox people are not cool. Am I supposed to respect you because you are saying you can but aren't doxing him?
You're probably right. I'll remove that comment. The information was sent to me over a year ago. I didn't request it or seek it out. I chuckled and moved on.
I think removing it was the right thing to do.
Posted using Partiko Android
You seem to have quite a wide range activities in crypto and you are adding value to the industry as a whole. This is a good thing indeed and the values you stand for. Just wish you are doing your best here.
Thanks for the kind words. It's surely possible I could do more on Steem and less elsewhere, but I don't think that will help with my larger goal with is to create a world we all want to live in.
As a small fish in this big sea, I often wonder the same thing. As you have said most witnesses do not post or engage with us small fish it can be hard to choose. I do believe that my vote counts, but understand that a few whales truly determine who makes the top 20. I do my best to vote for witnesses that make a contribution, ie. create and build projects that support the growth of STEEM.
Thanks for doing what you can.
There's also an issue with correlating Steem witness pay with pay that relates directly to a product or project which benefits the Steem ecosystem. A long time ago the witness pay was drastically reduced to make it clear that position isn't about building products as much as it is about running a trustworthy producer node, though of course there are many different opinions on this.
Thanks for the reply. I understand that coming up with a way to determine a way to create a rating. Maybe they current SP weight could changed to remove some of the top SP holders to better reflect the average Steemians vote.
Posted using Partiko Android
I suspect that the drop has been in part due to your lack of presence on the platform. Bernie did a post a while back calling out the top 20 on why they are witnesses. The resulting comment thread was rather interesting as various people posted their knowledge and perceptions of what the different witnesses were doing or not doing. As I recall, you didn't get many shining comments.
Bernie is not the only person on this platform who is determined to be anonymous and not to come on voice for any reason. He's controversial but he does care about the platform. That is consistent.
I really do take notice of your attitude of 'explaining' the changes to the people. If you spend a bit of time looking at posts and comment threads you will find there are a lot of the community who are opposed to the HF. They are getting less patient with some of the top 20 who seem intent on doing more imposing than listening.
The last few weeks of traveling certainly didn't help, and I didn't end up getting notifications from bernie's post (or if I did, I missed them).
HF21 includes changes that have been endlessly debated over and over again for many months. With Steem tanking in price compared to other cryptocurrencies, I'm surprised there's so much opposition to attempts at improving things. We've tried intense reward curves, we've tried linear curves, makes sense to me to try something else and see what works. More curation rewards may reward those who find valuable content. It may also reward those who already have a lot of Steem Power (which many may not like, but it might also create incentives for people to buy Steem Power instead of just dumping Steem). We won't know until we try it out.
back a while ago I picked up a link some where to a search someone had done which showed who was withdrawing from the platform and how much. Going through that list gave me a pretty good idea what was causing the price to be so stagnant ... too many larger stakeholders powering down while being busy pointing the finger at Steemit Inc for doing so
I wrote a fairly lengthy post on my views on HF 21
There are not many who are buying into the argument that more curation rewards will produce more people finding valuable content. Actually reading and finding content takes time, those seeking more ROI will not spend that time when they have other options.
Many content creators, especially ones who take the time to produce reasonably decent content are rather dismayed at the disrespect coming from some among the top 20 who claim that content creators are over rewarded and a drain on the system.
Cutting the rewards at the same time yet another cut is being discussed to fund the SPS is pushing some content creators to question if there is any value in even continuing to produce content here. I'm not just talking about bloggers, I'm talking about any content creators. So, if they power down and wander off because of the continued hits at their rewards instead of increased curation being paid to find 'valuable' content we'll end up with increased curation to run curation bots to vote on whatever and increase their ROI.
That is the more likely outcome which explains why so many of the top 20 are willing to approve the changes. It's not about what is good for the platform as much as equating good for platform with being good for self.
Since I repurpose my content to other places, if I find my rewards taking much of a hit, I'll just put my attention else where. Right now I publish on Steem first and the other places after. That could find change taking place if the outcome is negative.
Maybe that was me. Exchange Transfer Transparency for 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Agreed, but it's a little different when Steemit Inc set an intention for the funds (as far as I understand) and then later decided to use them differently. Also, Steemit Inc powered down because, according the CEO at the time, the funds were "not safe" on chain which, IMO, was a terribly irresponsible (and inaccurate) message.
What other options will they have under the new model? Won't they delegate to curation services staffed by people who are willing to put in that time?
I get that, but I also think we should be clear what we mean by "drain on the system." If many content creators come to Steem for free rewards for their content, then they will understandably have the perspective that they can and should cash those rewards out as they see fit, almost like creating content on Steem is a job and they are getting paid to do it. When it comes to cryptocurrency, that's not really how things work. The price goes up when people speculate and hold and others buy. If more people are selling than buying (and that's been the case for the exchange transfer report I've been doing for years), then the price goes down. From a certain perspective, those saying the people cashing out author rewards are a drain are not wrong. At the same time, your point is well taken that we need both. If people aren't creating good content here, then what's the point of it all?
That said, people create good content on sites all the time and get paid nothing so I'm not sure going from 75% to 50% will have that huge of an impact unless people are already here for reasons which don't make much sense to me (i.e. treating content creation here like a job).
In theory, if the curation algorithm is correct, only good content will be rewarded. If that's no the case, then yes, we will have a problem.
Couldn't this argument go the other way as well? Having a development fund which is decentralized and controlled by the community instead of just one company is (IMO) good for and important for the platform. I'd go so far as to say it may be critical for its long-term survival. Couldn't authors be missing this point and thinking about their own rewards instead? I personally think the portion going to a development fund is to high to start and voted for it to be lower, but other witnesses disagreed. I think the development fund should start small, prove itself, and grow in the future if needed. I also think taking some rewards from the top 20 witnesses could help (and maybe even distributing some of those rewards to backup witnesses).
Congratulations @lukestokes! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!