HF21 Addition: Vote Window Change
Hello Steemians, in the interest of keeping you all fully informed about the upcoming Hardfork we would like to inform you of a change that was proposed by the Witnesses with near-unanimous support. The change would reduce the “vote window” of a post from 15 minutes to 1 minute. Previously this window had been 30 minutes, but was reduced to 15 minutes in Hardfork 20.
Vote Window?
What the “vote window” means is that if a Steem user upvotes a post (“comments” are a type of post) immediately after it is published, they will receive a reduced curation reward. Only once 15 minutes have elapsed, and a vote is rendered, will that Steem user receive the full curation reward.
Because the Witnesses presented unanimous support, we coded up the changes and merged them into the release candidate. But we can easily undo these changes if necessary. We do not have any reason to believe that this change would adversely impact Steem, but we have not had sufficient time to perform the level of analysis we would ideally prefer.
If you’d like to learn more, @thecryptodrive has written a post that explains why he supports this change.
Your Witnesses
If you would like to learn more about why the Witnesses have made this decision, or if you do not agree with their decision, please let them know in the comments sections below. Ultimately it is your delegated stake that gives the Witnesses the authority to make these decisions, and if you do not feel those decisions are the right ones, then you should remove your Witness vote and allocate it to a Witness whose decisions are more aligned with your interests.
The Steemit Team
I have a feeling this is going to be either the best hardfork ever or the worst hardfork ever :D
Hoping for the best.
Have the same impression
Posted using Partiko iOS
Well, hopefully since the last hard fork hard forked us all, this one will be a bit better.
Most new people using this system were getting pretty screwed. They see a post, upvote it, and don't even know they are losing a bunch of their curation rewards. The rule was really made for back when we had exponetial rewards and the same 10 authors were the only ones making anything. So, getting on the post first really mattered. Here it's not as important since the change to linear rewards. To me new users are losing curation rewards as the con, and there's really no more pro since the change to linear. It's an easy decision to include for me.
Hah, not true, If you are the first voter you get 1/4 of your vote value to start with and not 1/8 of your vote value whenever you vote.
Solid point and just for that reason alone I think it's a solid change.
Things like this comment are the reason that witnesses need to take time to make posts about how they feel about proposals.
I like the change of 1 min window. Good idea and initiative.
I've long been a proponent of this change and I'm very glad to see it finally implemented. I originally proposed setting it at 5 minutes about a year or two ago, but at the time it was instead reduced from 30 to 15 minutes as a compromise of some kind. But even 15 minutes was too much, IMO, because I think many voters weren't aware of it or didn't have the patience to wait that long before voting on a "hot" post, so they wound up losing curation rewards for no good reason.
I agree. I think this is a good change. However, I don't think the EIP is.
I think we need to rethink that as it looks an awful lot like just wanting to try stuff because the price of steem is down.
It seems very likely to me that free downvotes will be used for personal reasons the vast majority of the time which will make this place much worse.
Oh! then... "CURATORS" have not the patience to "CURATE" Huh?
And yet, they even think they are entitled to call themselves CONTENT_CURATORS? ¿right?
By chance, is it because nobody here has the slightest idea that The Ancient Art Of Patience is actually implicit and is fundamental in any role that imply curation and is key in every shit that is worth to be curated? Organically & In Person actively curated!
Sheez! look no further in what linguistic, syntax, semantics and etymology has turn out to be in these blockchain days. Holy crap!
@por500bolos What is this sentence?
First of all, I don't think @blocktrades spoke for itself and even if that were the case why should curators be added unnecessary additional constraints? Do you think that the curative work is simple and does not take time to complete? Have you try to do it? Not for 1 easy day but for months? Are you one of those people who think that curation is a due, that if the curators fail to vote one of your posts they have made a professional mistake?
Now, my reading of this sentence is more like that:
On the one hand we are told that our posts can only be voted for 7 days and on the other hand that we have to wait 15 minutes to vote, that it is a beautiful and implacable logic!
On the one hand we are asked to be viral (a pity for all those who spend hours writing very enriching but non-viral posts) and on the other hand to avoid it because we should not vote the first 15 minutes.
The Ancient Art Of Patience has nothing to do here, it's not for people to adapt to Steem but for Steem to adapt to people unless of course it does not want to democratize and remain forever a royalist and elitist niche product.
A good developer is one who does something by thinking for users and not for himself.
In one year, Steem has allowed me to meet very interesting people and I really hope that Dev's team will continue to correct its past mistakes in order to stop this wave of Steemian's departure.
No, I didn't write the 'sentence' like you are quoting it you know?
I've clearly written: Oh! then... "CURATORS" have not the patience to "CURATE" Huh?
Notice the difference? It is a Question not an Affirmation.
Yeah! I know pretty well how you are reading the sentence and everything else in my comment: ¡Evidently out of context! ¿Am I right?
However, I can understand your little mistake. Since I have the hunch, that same as me, english is not your native tongue. Hence, your english is notoriously weirder than mine. And from that fact, the why you are misinterpreting and twisting everything I've meant on my comment.
So, I'm gonna suggest that you read my comment one more time. This time more slowly and with a spanglish dictionary at hand. I bet you will find many new means that escaped your comprehension radar the first time. :)
Lol what ?
...well, just click & learn @howo Hahaha. :p
Lol. Get a grip
WARNING: IF YOU REPLY TO THIS ACCOUNT YOU WILL BE FLAGGED, YOUR REP HARMED AND ALL OF YOUR REWARDS REMOVED. DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE TRASH. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
@blocktrades your steem power is not in use can you give me some delegation on cheap rates i am poor
:DDD
Possibly...but most of those people probably don't have that much stake. Minnows are lucky if they get a few Steem in curation. Steem being in the gutter is probably the only thing giving newbs a chance to have a nice stake. Maybe someone came here and put their retirement in or something and became an orca.
Where are such discussions being held? We've been seeking to join the Steemit slack for so long, unfortunately to no listening ears, if that's where those chats take place...
As a witness currently ranked 34, @actifit is very much interested in participating and voicing out our opinion wherever we find necessary or helpful.
We are supportive of above decision from our perspective.
I like this change I think it goes more hand in hand with "natural use"... Read it, if you like it upvote it, none of the BS of trying to remember to go back 15 minutes later.
Anytime will be gamed by bots, so this just allows humans to get in there too.
Of course many quality posts can't be read in 1 minute, so guessing the real curators will lose out to the in this only for the profit curators.
the use of the word curation on this platform is largely bastardized. It's more a voting race while other people who take the concept of curation seriously plod along behind to find the real jewels.
Most can be read faster than 15 minutes though. Unless they're really boring. Or long. Or long and boring. Mostly long and boring.
There are other types of quality content that can be reviewed very quickly though. Drawings take a quite a long time to do and can be viewed for quality pretty quickly. Photographs as well.
My point exactly.
Without a doubt that would be precisely the case. Yes @practicalthought, very accurate. ;)
I still don't understand this "go back 15 minutes later" thing.
For most people in most cases, the curation reward is the largest if the vote is placed between 5-10 minutes. And it will take 5 minutes in most cases to find a post and read it. So even if someone knows how the curation window works, waiting is unnecessary. So you can simply not pay attention to it.
https://beempy.com/curation/@whatsup/mathematical-incentives-only-work-if-the-stakeholders-use-them
I'm pretty sure most people don't run statistical analysis on whether or not it's worth to just vote early. There are a ton of people who get crap for rewards, so it's not like they'll get a ton of rewards suddenly after a few minutes.
These kinda things can be done easily by bots though.
No, but it's a valid counter-argument to aggroed's point that we are saving newbies from losing curation rewards when, actually, voting within the 15 mins can result in much higher rewards.
Well I don't math, so... and I shouldn't have to Math to read a damn post and upvoteit.
I know that this is ridiculous that this voting system is complicated for the user. But ... we are changing from
"the system where you really don't need to make any waiting for vote BS"
to
"the system where you really don't need to make any waiting for vote BS, but voting bots get more curation rewards than users"
Well that's how it is going to work no matter what.
It's always been true - it's how the central bank of steem works.
All this 1 minute window is doing is mitigating the mixture of increasing curation rewards plus a decrease in payouts for most posts. If the 15 mins was kept, then it would add some curation-reward losses for some upvoters.
It is giving with one hand and taking away with the other - while algorithmic-curation-rewards-mining will be done by the fastest bots.
Yeah, I have a similar position.
It might even be easier for bots. Hell, they can even calculate whether it's worth it to vote early if there's another bot that tends to vote early as well.
This will be beneficial for comment upvoting and I don't really see a difference between 15 minutes to 1 minute when people are going to automate it anyways!
That's exactly right @lunaticpandora. :)
Upvoting comments is actually something else quite different than reward author's posts and original content from a curation point of view
1 minute or less may be enough to read entirely a comment and upvote it if is deserved. Though, while a comment even can be longer, juicier and tastier than a whole original post, the willing to reward them handsomely in signal of appreciation & recognition, mostly have anything to do with 'curation rewards'
In my humble redfish opinion a 5 minute window might work more ideally than 1 minute, so as to encourage people to actually read the posts they are upvoting/curating, as opposed to just skimming the contents to get the jump on everyone else in the curation game..
Just vote on what you like and feel deserves some rewards or recognition. If you think about being in a curation "game" then the system is already flawed. At least with HF21 you'll get better curstion rewards by just voting what you like compared to now.
I personally do not try to game anything. I actively currate based on quality of the post. My whole point is to encourage others to do the same. More people would likely read a post as opposed to skim it if the window was 5 minutes instead of 1.
Yep, I agree @paradigm42!! That's exactly what 'currate' actually means. ;)
I agree, don't care so much about rewards on curation, do care about what you reward.
Those using their own scripts for voting are going to do very well placing their votes in this window. Those using steemauto/steemvoter will have varying results, although not anywhere close to those running their own setup.
IF
curators come out of the woodwork to find undervalued content, 1 minute will work well for those quick to see the potential of a post.
I made the 'if' quite big, not sure if it should be bigger.
Of course @abh12345.
It's more than obvious that the 'if' should be way bigger!! };)
This is being gamed by experts and enthusiasts for experts and enthusiasts. I don't see how further complicating things is going to attract a ton of people.
The beauty of Steem was anyone could understand amd do dpos.
Now try to explain how to do it well without robots and with reading and not memorizing a list of consistently good authors (by good I mean actually good and not just Steem VVIPs)
Posted using Partiko Android
make it bigger lol
that's as big as it gets, sorry :P
This is GREAT news....
...for witnesses, whales, insiders, staff, and bots.
It takes from the 'have-nots' to enrich the 'haves'. It's another nail in the coffin of this community.
The big game here is making curation more profitable than content creation. In the long term, it is expected that curation patterns change in benefit for the authors, but that might not happen.
A vote received before 30/15 mins meant more author reward, and even that is taken out of the equation? what's left for authors if people keep curating the same way they've been doing it so far? How will new users be persuaded to come use Steemit if chances for a reward are being diminished with each hardfork?
I'm not very optimistic about these changes as I see those with the more stake receiving more out of their cryptocurrencies and giving less for this site to function as it was previously designed. I'm afraid curation patterns will stay the same and authors will be less motivated to create content. The long run you hope for might not happen...
A vote received before 30/15 mins currently doesn't mean more author rewards (that was changed in HF20, IIRC, because it only encouraged early self-voting). Instead, those funds are "burned" under current rules.
Not burned, distributed into the rewards pool
Right, you're correct, I misspoke. But the essential point is that it doesn't go to the author now: the HF isn't changing that.
Hello there,
I know, thanks for reminding us that. It would be great to have some statistics regarding self-voting after HF20 and if the objective was met. Since you have a voice and ideas given for Steemit to improve, I would like to take the opportunity and ask you,
What I'm thinking here is that curation can be stimulated but not to the point of making that equal to content creation. Of course, I'm asking for things beyond what has been posted about this. Perhaps since you've been involved in those talks this post mention were held, you can give us some more info about the reasoning behind the decisions.
In any case, thank you.
50/50 between authors and curators isn't even close to "equal to content curation". Because there's one author and a lot of voters.
Saying equal is talking about the rate of distribution. It's a 1:1 relationship. But of course, what you are saying it's completely true. There can be many voters on one post, and while they get the 50% of their vote back, the author collects the other 50% that represents the addtion of all those 50% from each voter. Still, we see 400 votes on a post that equal 2 STEEM and while the author obtained 1.5 now he would obtain 1. Whether those votes got there through trails, or bots, or manual curation, it's still concerning how this change will affect content creation.
It would be amazing to define the standars to see proof of brain actually met on the platform as a guide for current and new users. Maybe something the dev team could work on and publish as general guidelines.
There wasn't an special calculation performed to come up with 50/50 vs some other combination. 50/50 is just a reversion to a formula that was working better.
After the switch to 75/25, we saw the rise of vote bots and the result was that manual curators like me pretty much gave up in disgust. The rules of voting became simple under 75/25: delegate to vote bots or have your stake eroded badly versus those who didn't delegate to vote bots. Either way, eventually all stake was going to be delegated to voting bots.
I also saw a pretty clear decline in the quality of articles on trending as a result, destroying the promise of "proof of brain" on the platform.
hey, thanks for answering. This is pretty interesting. You think reversing the formula back to 50/50 would have an impact against bots? Manual curation can be increased after this hardfork?
That's the main intent of the 50/50 change, to encourage more manual curation again.
Not burned, passed through to the trending page.