RE: What STEEM Really Needs Is A Dolphin-Booster Program As Evidenced By @fulltimegeek!!!
There are so many high quality posts that just get skipped on Steemit due to the meritocratic nature of the website. I came up with a way to improve this on the blockchain level by incentivising whales and dolphins to actively seek minnows to upvote and support through a tiered curation rewards system, where you gain more curation rewards the larger the difference in rep is between the upvoter and the upvotee. This would incentivise the higher reps from voting for accounts with lower rep, if the rewards are high enough, like x2 SP from curation or even more!
Like, +2.5% per reputation difference, starting from 25. Let 25 = 0 and reputation be a modulus, therefore rep 10 = rep 40 in terms of curation rewards for the upvoter.
The rewards don't have to be a linear 2.5%, it could be another formula instead of just y = 1.025x, to come up with a good/perfect formula there would need to be experimentation, then changes at the blockchain level, which my uneducated self no idea who can do this/if it's possible!
If it's possible, I would see a massive influx of support for newer users!!
This certainly makes a lot of sense.
I mentioned the idea one's vote counts less the higher the rep of the one being voted upon.
For example, voting on someone over 70 at 100% only gives that person a 10% vote in STU while a 100% vote on a person with a rep under 40 might count for 100% of the worth.
Obviously the scale could be adjusted for lower voting percentages.
I might make a post about this later with more in-depth formulas and stuff, would you be interested to help me promote it if I do?? I've made 3-4 posts about this when I first got onto Steemit and all of them were vastly ignored as I didn't have much influence back then (and now)! However, everyone who did see it thought it was a great idea!
If this idea came into fruition, I think it would be amazing for the community and Steemit! I'd also like visibility for people to debate my ideas and look for possible downfalls, and if the community agrees with it, perhaps it might be implemented in the blockchain (somehow)!
Sure @cryptoeater.
After you write it just post the link in the comment section of one of my most recent posts. I will read it and if it makes a ton of sense, which I am sure it will, I will resteem it for you....and leave a good comment to try to get a discussion going.
"Thanks! That'd be greatly appreciated :)"
posting for cryptoeater cus his internet died and he wants to sleep
can confirm I said this LOL
:)
(internet back up but I'll be sleeping haha)
LOL that is okay...Always willing to help out my friend.
Any good idea is an idea worthy of sharing on here....
We all need to figure out ways to improve things...whether it is with our own behavior or by putting forth ideas for the community to discuss.
I've actually been emailing other academics personally behind the scenes, those who study commons systems or networks, to what they think about different rewards rules, participation rules, etc. Linear versus exponential for consensus, reputation distributions, stake distributions, etc.
Most amazingly enough haven't heard about steem, despite steem having the most transactions of any blockchain and being the only large consensus economy.
I've been collecting comments like this, analyzing. It's not obvious what is the best rule, because structured systems are not intuitive. Caffeine blocks receptors, inhibits parts of the brain . . . which inhibit other parts of the brain . . . so it ends up activating, stimulating.
The scaling for vote percentages would be the key. F(x1, x2, ..., xN ; k) = x is dominated by k if the x vector is monotonic improvement related to F, and k is not.
I think this is a really cool idea!
Lack of support for minnows is definitely a problem in the community and it sometimes feels unfair when you see memes on trending with huge $$$ yet yours barely gets noticed.
I'm not sure if reputation score is potentially the answer though, a lot of people like myself have tried to build up a reputation but still don't necessarily have much SP at all in the grand scheme of things.
It could also encourage up-voting people that are actually not contributing to the community positively if the formula wasn't tweaked so that up-voting people with a rep score of below 25 didn't equate to even more rewards.
People below gets counted as higher than 25, like rep 20 = 30 and rep 0 = 50! This way it discourages people from making an account to flag just to get higher curation!
In my original idea i forgot to mention, your rewards are multiplied for each upvote after yours!! Like if you upvote someone, and 20 people upvote after you, you get 20x(rep difference)*y, where x and y are constants or variables yet to be decided. This way it discourages from randomly voting for rep 25 people.
Your point about actively building rep is a good point though. But rep (actual rep, not the level) is proportional to the amount of steem you've earned from posts, so I think with my proposed changes it would discourage the use of voting bots as that would increase your rep for no reason and encourage creating genuine good content for upvotes from genuine users!
Ahhhh I see that's interesting, yes I think that would work quite well and solve many issues. That one formulaic implementation would help to solve 3 problems at once, like you said.
Pretty good really :)
I'm glad you like the idea! I'll make a post about it tomorrow with more in-depth formulas and ideas regarding it! If you're interested, I can link u the post via memo!
Yeah sure man, I'll look forward to giving it a read :)
Made post here It's a bit messy and hard to understand but it's basically a summary of all my ideas + a bit of explanation!
Time is often a huge factor in Reputation numbers here. Other than some people who sign up here who already have large numbers of followers on some other platform like YouTube, few jump to 65-70 overnight. In my experience, getting to 50 or so is relatively easy, but the climb gets a lot harder after that.
From what I understand, it is a doubling scale....each interval is twice as large as the one ahead of it.
So to go from 50 to 51 is easier than going from 60-61.
Since much of Steemit is based on powers of ten, I would guess that making it to 65 is 10x as difficult as making it to 55.
FWIW, I had a fairly easy rise up to about 53 and then hit a brick wall. Slow going since then.
Maybe the Peter Principle came into play.
What is arctan? I keep seeing it buying delegation leases on mb.
Hi! I'm arctan. I'm am investor on steemit. I'm like a private up vote bot, except I'm my a bot. My friends pay me with crypto and fiat for up votes and I reinvest my earnings into leasing more steem power. Hope this clears things up!
I see... that sort of clears things up. How is that profitable? I thought delegations yielded negative returns even if used to self-vote 100%.
Yeah honestly it isn't very profitable. Back when SBD was super high it was a lot more profitable but since SBD and Steem both went down in price, I'm in the red, I'm operating in the red. However, with Steem and SBD prices going up I'm hoping to become more profitable again soon!
That's a totally new way of thinking @cryptoeater, haven't seen this idea pitched before on Steemit. I'm really interested in your 'to be written' article. Thanks!
Hi! Here's my article! It's a bit long and messy but gets a lot of the main points across!
You have a brilliant idea in here. It would be a very productive system if it will be implemented in STEEM blockchain. Looking forward for it.
@cryptoeater
Hi! Here's my article! It's a bit long and messy but gets my main points across!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I will find time to read it and will give feedback later.
Really amazing, I did not know him before thank you brother @cryptoeater for all this wonderful and useful information. I wish you all the best. I hope to see everyone help each other
Hi! Here's my article! It's a bit long and messy but gets my main points across!