RE: Making Steemit Better: A Proposal to Flatten the Rewards Curve
First things first, an enormous thank you to each of you: @ats.david @clayop @donkeypong @gavvet @hanshotfirst @jesta @kevinwong @liberosist @sigmajin @smooth @snowflake @stellabelle for spending what I can only guess to be a lot of hours and doing some serious soul-searching.
I will not pretend to understand the mathematics with which I think many of us are somewhat bamboozled. Any assistance in the levelling of the playing field has to be welcomed and I thoroughly hope you get the support of your peers.
I understood the breadth of posts affected in terms of reward range. It looks like a post with few votes becomes a more attractive curation exercise and one with many votes is less attractive.
If a post has 100 votes and a value of $0.02 and another has 40 votes and $25.00 potential payout, would the 100 vote post become that much more attractive? I apologise if that sounds like a daft question - just trying to get to grips with it!
At the same time, could you make minimum vote %, say, 25% - there are many who do not understand that minnows voting at 5% is sort of useless. Under this scenario it could become more counter-productive.
Thank you all again. Your work and ability to find consensus is very much appreciated!
Posting this in Facebook support groups too.
This proposal will narrow the gap significantly. If people have SP, their votes will be more powerful. That will remain. What would not remain is the enormous amplification that the system adds on top of the already-large disparity in SP holdings.
If you look at the third graph in the post, the $25 post would be somewhere toward the left and its reward using the revised formula would be much smaller. The $0.02 post would be somewhere toward the right and its reward would be much larger.
Many thanks for that explanation @smooth - you guys are all doing an amazing thing by finding consensus amongst yourselves first and by being prepared to explain and rationalise the reasoning and the effects. Thank you.
Have a great time for the rest of your weekend.
One clarification, as i think @smooth may have missed part of what the question was looking for.
In @ebryan 's example, the gap between the 100 vote, $.02 post and the 40 vote, $25 post will be narrowed, but the narrowing will be based solely on the total SP voting for the post.
That is to say that fact that the first post has 100 votes and the second post has 40 votes is irrelevant. The narrowing of the gap between a 40 vote post with $.02 and a 40 vote post with $25 will be exactly the same.
In a perfect world, i don't think rewarding the 100 vote post for getting more votes is a bad idea. But i don't think there is a pratical way that can be done without making the system exploitable by sibyls.
I mostly agree. I deliberately did not address the 100 vote vs 40 vote issue because also agree with your comment that it can't be changed (my proposal has always been to stop prominently displaying the vote count because it is misleading and making it more visible is not only confusing but creates an incentive to deliberately manipulate it, as we saw in the case of the Hot ranking before that was changed).
However, I do think it helps, in narrowing the disparity. A 40 vote post may (and will) certainly earn more than a 100 vote post, but even when that does happen the disparity would often be much smaller, in practice. Maybe that reduces the degree to which it seems unfair, maybe not, but it certainly can't hurt.
great approach for all Steemians I think given I can judge this yet @smooth
It really was a very long night, but I have to hand it to @donkeypong who put the seed of possibility that some kind of consensus could be reached by a large group of very diverse people. And @clayop you did a great job with this post, making it really clear for people.
I kept at it, asking if we were all on the same page, intrigued by the idea that all of us could potentially come to agreeing on one, just one thing that we all would like to see changed.......soon.
You all deserve the respect and thanks of the community at large in bucket loads!
There comes a point where egos have to be set aside so that things can actually move forward.
Which, I suspect, made yours a pivotal role! Well done. Get yourself a vase of wine; you deserve it.
Each person had a pivotal role. I can't take credit for that. If anything, I am just tired of being at odds with everyone who has a different opinion from mine. This system tends to bring out a warring nature in some people, which can rub off long-term.
It gets really old watching a bunch of different people always trying to "prove their point". It's basically a failed method to stress so much individuality without moving things forward as a group into action. Moving as individuals is just not as powerful as moving as a group, setting aside differences, and focusing on what we have in common.
The tech part is not my strong point, so maybe someone else can answer you there. As for curation rewards, there are still some different views in the community over how best to handle them. But I think voting on posts that are not doing well yet (or from content creators who are not yet well known) will prove to be the better choice.
Thank you @donkeypong, I really appreciate all your efforts. I have already posted this in both the steemit and our Aspiring Whales and Dolphins FB pages. Great job - you have no idea! I think that this will go a long way to getting vote distribution where it should be - not a cure-all - one step at a time. Have a great rest of your weekend. Namaste.