You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Hardfork 20 - missing information
I'd support removing stake-weighted voting, but how would it be done? If every vote was equal, what would stop someone like noganoo from ruling over the community with his millions of scam accounts?
That's what the hold up is for me.
Unfortunately, I don't have a solution. Ned has been hyping up account-based voting (and trashing stake-weighted voting while at it; which is weird because that's still how the Steem reward pool works with no plans announced to change it), where accounts are whitelisted. To be fair, account-based voting is something that might work for smaller scale, centralized SMTs. Alternatively, SMT moderators can blacklist, so the noganoos of the world would be blacklisted from allocating rewards, which could be more scalable if done right. Smart reputation systems could work too, if someone cracks that.
Of course, account-based voting of any sort is not going to work for the common Steem reward pool. My only thought is just remove the common Steem reward pool, and let the SMTs and Communities compete for the best solution. Users will flock to the SMTs that figure it out. You may remember I ranted about this a few months ago, and haven't found a better solution since.
The common reward pool has devolved into a shitshow of scamming and abuse, and no one has a solution in sight. It's discovering new bottoms of the barrel every week, and nothing's been done about it. I don't have anything else to add...
That’s because Ned has no earthly idea what he’s doing. He has called Steem protocols “evil” and trashes the very system that he and his “dev team” reside over. The better option for him - in my opinion - would be to power down and leave. Instead, he’s intentionally breaking a system that had coherence, but now has none.
Whether or not you liked the original system, it at least made sense. What we have now is a bunch of mismatched pieces of a puzzle with no picture.
There are some solutions to the reward pool waste/abuse that we see. But nobody is willing to try them because the handful of large stakeholders and vote-schemers are making too much easy money now...which is why the protocol changes last year should not have been made. They were far more “evil” than what preceded them.
I don't agree that the system was ever coherent. I mean... hyperinflation and n^2 were batshit insane. They are so nonsensical that I often wonder whether Dan only ever came up with those to increase his own stake so he could dump and leave. But yeah, it's become a complete mess now.
I was never a fan of the hyperinflation. The coherence I’m talking about was with the reward allocation protocols for content and curation. I think we all agree that n2 was too steep. But today’s Frankensteem is a much worse horror show.
Full linear is a problem. The 10-vote target is a problem. The “75/25” reward split is a problem. (I would also add SP delegation to this, but others disagree for some reason.) Together, they create an incentive structure that is not aligned with investor interest and that provides poor results for social media user interest. And more proposals are on the way that will exacerbate some of these misalignments.
The entire ninja-mine + hyperinflation was nothing but a power/money grab. I think that’s the only true consensus on this platform.
BTW...I haven’t seen Ned try to fix that issue yet. Not even once. In fact, STINC continues to use that stake to seemingly line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends (and scammers and BS “projects). So the next time Ned talks about “evil,” ask him about that. (Don’t expect a meaningful response.)
Agree with you here
^2 is too much but some sort of superlinear is necessary. What linear boils down to is rewarding content agnostic behavior the most. Whether it's self voting or vote selling, the most direct way to maximize profits basically disregard the content entirely. And no, even if bots impose standards, they'll be out-competed by those who don't. Even if not, minimum standards are not good enough, it's basically a quality cap, with no incentive to go beyond that.
We're left with a mess of a platform that rewards and displays content that has no reflection or bearing of quality whatsoever. Imagine if facebook, twitter, reddit, hell even itunes, spotify etc. just threw any content onto the front page/feed. They'll be no incentive to visit them at all. Yet if stakeholders don't self vote or sell votes, they just lose stake relative to those who do under the current economic system.
SMTs are great and all, but they alone cannot solve this if the underlying token of the chain (Steem) is so dysfunctional. A few popular SMTs can't carry the main token. Removing stake based voting also takes away the biggest incentive to hold a stake as well.
Have maybe n^1.3 with 50/50 curation and maybe 10% of your total voting power in free downvotes a day. I honestly think this would be sufficient to turn this entire place around. Voting on good content (at least subjectively good content) and competing over curation will likely out compete self voting/vote selling under this system. This platform will be a functional content discovery platform again, and they'd be more incentive to buy steem if the voting market isn't so rampant.
I'm so surprised our voices here have fallen on to deaf's ears for so long. I don't think it helps attacking Steemit Inc or Ned, we really need their help here, along with the witnesses. I'll try bringing this up with them again (i've failed a few times before) after the dust has settled from this hard fork.
Most likely.
For some added context on what I’ve mentioned here...
https://steemit.com/steemit/@ats-david/make-steemit-great-again-fork-this-place
Remember when we all talked about this stuff and wanted to find real, scalable solutions? What happened to that? When did all of that change?
(Hint: shortly after last year’s hard forks)
Your #2 is already implemented and #4 and #5 are included in HF20. That's not everything you asked for but it seems like significant progress to me.
Ah yes, I remember that post!