This is fantastic analysis, @crokkon. I agree with @abh12345; I'd hoped for more of an improvement for curators relative to authors, but that's no reflection on the rigour of your work.
The elephant in the room is the SBD price. Until that's back down around a dollar, we're comparing apples and oranges.
Thanks @mattclarke, also for the RS! With the "elephant in the room" I assume you mean that author rewards are payed out 50/50, while curation rewards are SP only? That actually comes on top. The numbers shown here as author and curator rewards are in STEEM as taken from the reward pool, before the split.
I think that this is the key point regarding curation vs vote selling.
Wouldn't it be simplest just to switch curation payouts to the same currency as post payout? i.e. 50/50 SP/SBD in most cases. Then we have apples and apples.
Waiting for the SBD price to change its behaviour may not happen - and there are also benefits of a SBD price above $1 for many people.
Without comprehending the reasoning behind the SBD pump, it's really hard to know how to approach it.
It's also incredibly difficult explaining the architecture of the place to noobs, when they can't understand why we'd have two currencies which are worth roughly the same.
Simplicity is it's own reward.
SBD's were designed to be a hedge, pegged to the USD; so if you had some gains on steem and wanted to lock them in, you could buy SBDs instead of having to cash out via an exchange or bank account.
You'd know that even if the price dropped, you'd still own that amount of US dollars worth of steem.
All of the mechanisms the team built to keep the price around a dollar were designed to push it up if its value crept down below a dollar.
Since they're designed to sit at 1 dollar, it didn't occur to anyone that somebody might buy them for $5 (who would do that?) and nobody built in a mechanism to pull the price back down if it went higher.
It's all very strange :)
Thanks for looking into this one. I had hoped for a better 'result' for the curators following HF20 to be honest.
Chopping the vote times in half (as the reverse auction time is being halved) and factoring in the 'return to pool' of the early self-vote makes total sense, and sooo yeah, not too pleased with the numbers, but still an awesome piece of work on your part.
Thanks @abh12345, I was hoping for 'better' results as well. The insta-votes or possibly the lack thereof on HF20 may still improve the situation slightly with HF20, but I guess we'll only know when it's active.
Okay. First off, thank you for this. You answered the question I had regarding where the auto self-upvoting rewards actually go after HF 20 if they're no longer going to the author. They end up back in the rewards pool, rather than with the curators.
Which seems like a wasted opportunity, since so many people who self-upvote claim to be doing it to sweeten the curator pot when they've actually been sweetening their own author's pot with the self-upvote. It seems like the curator rewards would be significantly impacted if the auto self-upvoting actually folded into the curator rewards.
So, the status quo is more or less maintained. I guess we might as well keep HF 19 (aside from Velocity, maybe).
Thank you! To be clear, the author gets 75% of the vote value in both HF19 and HF20. In HF19, the remaining 25% are distributed between the author and the curators depending on the voting time, giving the author a part of that pot on top. In HF20, those 25% go to the curators or stay in the pool depending on the voting time.
Self-voting at post creation time in HF19 gives 100% to the author, while reducing the curation share for every other voter. Even if a self-vote is done after the reverse auction time when 25% of the vote value goes to the curators, there are still 75% of it going to the author. Arguing with "sweetening the curator pot" is questionable even in this case, but that's a topic on it's own ;)
If the reverse auction part of the curation share would remain with the curators, we'd have a fixed 75/25% distribution of the post rewards. This would actually be possible with changing a single line of code. Seems like this is not wanted by those in charge...
Self-voting at post creation time in HF19 gives 100% to the author, while reducing the curation share for every other voter. Even if a self-vote is done after the reverse auction time when 25% of the vote value goes to the curators, there are still 75% of it going to the author. Arguing with "sweetening the curator pot" is questionable even in this case, but that's a topic on it's own ;)
You were talking about a potential 1-2.5% increase in curator rewards between HF 19 and HF20 depending on when everyone voted. I was thinking that if that 6.6% that might go back to the rewards pool in your example actually ended up with the curators, it would be better to get the 25% distributed among them than just the 18-20%. Sweetening the pot might not be the right phrase, but potentially having the entire 25% to work with rather than only 18-something percent would be better than nothing.
As it is, I'm not sure why a 65-35, or 60-40 split hasn't been proposed, discussed, implemented, what have you. I understand the 50-50 split that was tried went away, not sure why, but guessing author's didn't like sharing so much with the curators. Which is fine. I would hope that the author is putting in more time to create a post than a curator is spending to read the post and then decide whether or not to upvote it. Or for that matter, simply auto voting, so I'm in agreement that the majority of the rewards should go with the author. There's still a range between 75-25 and 50-50 that could be explored, but as you say, that's a whole different topic.
If the reverse auction part of the curation share would remain with the curators, we'd have a fixed 75/25% distribution of the post rewards. This would actually be possible with changing a single line of code. Seems like this is not wanted by those in charge...
Just skimming yr post following way too much whisky on a Wednesday.
Nothing intelligent to add into the mix ATM, instead I'll just state the obvious and say that it seems that the (potential next) HF will just be an easily avoidable redistributive tweak, albeit in the right direction.
Then again, you never know the effects of small changes.... data analysis can't predict that, as you're well aware of course!
Glad to see your getting rewarded for such great analysis!
Vote for Utopian Witness! We are made of developers, system administrators, entrepreneurs, artists, content creators, thinkers. We embrace every nationality, mindset and belief.
A bit of a tangent here, but just today I've come across a reason why the current dust limit could be a good thing. I'm guessing this is a bot, because I'm pretty sure you can't manually post every 5 minutes, but @adsofficial18 seems to be earning something from it. Most of the posts are only getting the odd cent from @cheetah though.
This also gives a case for limiting daily blog posts. Do you think HF20 would have any effect on discouraging this sort of behaviour?
Wow, please report that account to @steemcleaners, that's clearly automated spam: http://steemcleaners.com/reports/new
The dust limit has no influence here. The votes are big enough that they easily exceed the HF19 and the HF20 dust vote limits. What is there already is the bandwidth limit. If you look up that account on steemd now, you'll see that it actually ran out of bandwidth right now and is currently not able to post:
However, as you can see in the authors posting history, it doesn't really prevent that kind of content...
As always: brilliant work! Unfortunately the result is disappointing for us small fish. This again helps to better understand where we stand and where we might head to. Thanks a lot!
This is fantastic analysis, @crokkon. I agree with @abh12345; I'd hoped for more of an improvement for curators relative to authors, but that's no reflection on the rigour of your work.
The elephant in the room is the SBD price. Until that's back down around a dollar, we're comparing apples and oranges.
Thanks @mattclarke, also for the RS! With the "elephant in the room" I assume you mean that author rewards are payed out 50/50, while curation rewards are SP only? That actually comes on top. The numbers shown here as author and curator rewards are in STEEM as taken from the reward pool, before the split.
I think that this is the key point regarding curation vs vote selling.
Wouldn't it be simplest just to switch curation payouts to the same currency as post payout? i.e. 50/50 SP/SBD in most cases. Then we have apples and apples.
Waiting for the SBD price to change its behaviour may not happen - and there are also benefits of a SBD price above $1 for many people.
Without comprehending the reasoning behind the SBD pump, it's really hard to know how to approach it.
It's also incredibly difficult explaining the architecture of the place to noobs, when they can't understand why we'd have two currencies which are worth roughly the same.
Simplicity is it's own reward.
It will come in handy to say thanks for giving
What's wrong with more than $1 sbd price?
SBD's were designed to be a hedge, pegged to the USD; so if you had some gains on steem and wanted to lock them in, you could buy SBDs instead of having to cash out via an exchange or bank account.
You'd know that even if the price dropped, you'd still own that amount of US dollars worth of steem.
All of the mechanisms the team built to keep the price around a dollar were designed to push it up if its value crept down below a dollar.
Since they're designed to sit at 1 dollar, it didn't occur to anyone that somebody might buy them for $5 (who would do that?) and nobody built in a mechanism to pull the price back down if it went higher.
It's all very strange :)
Pesky free markets meeting planners plans.
They just never do as they are told!
😂
( I know nothing of this, ...just my 2 cents. lol)
Plan your plans and scheme your schemes.
They're flat ash under the wheel of progress.
Yeah, but socialism will work next time..........honest...
😂
The higher the SBD price, the higher the likelihood of self-voting for a 'cash' payout, over curation as an 'invested' payout.
Hi @crokkon
Thanks for looking into this one. I had hoped for a better 'result' for the curators following HF20 to be honest.
Chopping the vote times in half (as the reverse auction time is being halved) and factoring in the 'return to pool' of the early self-vote makes total sense, and sooo yeah, not too pleased with the numbers, but still an awesome piece of work on your part.
Cheers!
Thanks @abh12345, I was hoping for 'better' results as well. The insta-votes or possibly the lack thereof on HF20 may still improve the situation slightly with HF20, but I guess we'll only know when it's active.
Indeed. I trust you'll be crunching the numbers as soon as this is the case :)
I'm ready, only Steemit seems to hesitate with a release date :)
Thank you for coming up with this analysis. This is a good benchmark or prediction of the possible results once HF20 is deployed.
Need help? Write a ticket on https://support.utopian.io/.
Chat with us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]
Nice, thorough analysis.
Okay. First off, thank you for this. You answered the question I had regarding where the auto self-upvoting rewards actually go after HF 20 if they're no longer going to the author. They end up back in the rewards pool, rather than with the curators.
Which seems like a wasted opportunity, since so many people who self-upvote claim to be doing it to sweeten the curator pot when they've actually been sweetening their own author's pot with the self-upvote. It seems like the curator rewards would be significantly impacted if the auto self-upvoting actually folded into the curator rewards.
So, the status quo is more or less maintained. I guess we might as well keep HF 19 (aside from Velocity, maybe).
Thank you! To be clear, the author gets 75% of the vote value in both HF19 and HF20. In HF19, the remaining 25% are distributed between the author and the curators depending on the voting time, giving the author a part of that pot on top. In HF20, those 25% go to the curators or stay in the pool depending on the voting time.
Self-voting at post creation time in HF19 gives 100% to the author, while reducing the curation share for every other voter. Even if a self-vote is done after the reverse auction time when 25% of the vote value goes to the curators, there are still 75% of it going to the author. Arguing with "sweetening the curator pot" is questionable even in this case, but that's a topic on it's own ;)
If the reverse auction part of the curation share would remain with the curators, we'd have a fixed 75/25% distribution of the post rewards. This would actually be possible with changing a single line of code. Seems like this is not wanted by those in charge...
You were talking about a potential 1-2.5% increase in curator rewards between HF 19 and HF20 depending on when everyone voted. I was thinking that if that 6.6% that might go back to the rewards pool in your example actually ended up with the curators, it would be better to get the 25% distributed among them than just the 18-20%. Sweetening the pot might not be the right phrase, but potentially having the entire 25% to work with rather than only 18-something percent would be better than nothing.
As it is, I'm not sure why a 65-35, or 60-40 split hasn't been proposed, discussed, implemented, what have you. I understand the 50-50 split that was tried went away, not sure why, but guessing author's didn't like sharing so much with the curators. Which is fine. I would hope that the author is putting in more time to create a post than a curator is spending to read the post and then decide whether or not to upvote it. Or for that matter, simply auto voting, so I'm in agreement that the majority of the rewards should go with the author. There's still a range between 75-25 and 50-50 that could be explored, but as you say, that's a whole different topic.
So, this begs the question, "Why?"
Just skimming yr post following way too much whisky on a Wednesday.
Nothing intelligent to add into the mix ATM, instead I'll just state the obvious and say that it seems that the (potential next) HF will just be an easily avoidable redistributive tweak, albeit in the right direction.
Then again, you never know the effects of small changes.... data analysis can't predict that, as you're well aware of course!
Glad to see your getting rewarded for such great analysis!
Hey @crokkon
We're already looking forward to your next contribution!
Contributing on Utopian
Learn how to contribute on our website or by watching this tutorial on Youtube.
Utopian Witness!
Vote for Utopian Witness! We are made of developers, system administrators, entrepreneurs, artists, content creators, thinkers. We embrace every nationality, mindset and belief.
Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV
It should be more profitable to curate than to just upvote your own comments.
A bit of a tangent here, but just today I've come across a reason why the current dust limit could be a good thing. I'm guessing this is a bot, because I'm pretty sure you can't manually post every 5 minutes, but @adsofficial18 seems to be earning something from it. Most of the posts are only getting the odd cent from @cheetah though.
This also gives a case for limiting daily blog posts. Do you think HF20 would have any effect on discouraging this sort of behaviour?
Wow, please report that account to @steemcleaners, that's clearly automated spam: http://steemcleaners.com/reports/new
The dust limit has no influence here. The votes are big enough that they easily exceed the HF19 and the HF20 dust vote limits. What is there already is the bandwidth limit. If you look up that account on steemd now, you'll see that it actually ran out of bandwidth right now and is currently not able to post:
However, as you can see in the authors posting history, it doesn't really prevent that kind of content...
I reported it. I forgot about bandwidth limit. I'm surprised they managed the amount of posts they did before it ran out!
As always: brilliant work! Unfortunately the result is disappointing for us small fish. This again helps to better understand where we stand and where we might head to. Thanks a lot!
Thanks @jefpatat!