RE: Whales - Can the community buy out a portion of your influence?
I really like how this conversation has evolved and I support it's exploration/implementation however I can.
To "keep things simple", I think a good first step would simply be to remove curation rewards.
I can't speak how this change would impact others behavior, but I can explain how it would impact mine. Currently I follow a curation trail (via streemian.com) which makes up the vast majority of my voting. I still do vote manually as I read steemit, but something like 98%+ of my votes are automated for curation rewards.
Removing curation rewards would cause me to cease this behavior and the only things I'd be voting on would be things I actually read. There still may be a case to automatically vote for specific people (who I'd like to support), but it wouldn't be about rewards anymore, it would be about supporting those I'd like to encourage.
I have earned 4.5 MV over the last 30 days through curation (roughly 2.1k SP). I realize that with these changes (removing curation) and by doing a more even distribution (via "interest") it's very likely that I wouldn't earn that much. I might only earn 2-4 MV. My curation currently accounts for somewhere between 0.25% - 0.5% of the total rewards pool (for example, on the 12th of Feb I was 0.34%).
I am ok with that, simply because I believe this change would give a lot more people influence within the system. It may not be what's best for me personally/financially - but I do believe it would be what's best for STEEM and Steemit.
Yes, I think this is exactly the type of voting behavior we want to encourage!
I don't think you need to do this. The reason those curation bots are easy to make money with is they are experts at front running whales. If we had a more fragmented whale base (by limiting voting after 250mv) then those bots wouldn't work.
As long as curation rewards exist, then bots will profit by voting on posts that they predict are 'winners'.
Right but it's much easier to predict 200 whales than 1000 dolphins. Remember the London whale?
That is true, but there would still be plenty of game-theory to play around with. Bots might not make as much but they will still be able to make money.
Just the ability to vote on posts 24 hours a day right around the 30 minute mark gives them a huge advantage. There will also still be tons of users that are on auto-upvote lists, which are easy to predict.
@ timcliff I wasn't aware of that 30 minute rule, seems like a bug that need fixing instead of working around it.
Does it mean that it make no difference at any point when you vote in the first 30 min ? And that guilds use that to predict good post ?
Bots will also profit by voting on posts that are just good, which may or may not predict winners. Not all bots attempt to front-run whales.
But of course there's no way to differentiate, I just thought I'd make the point 😇
Agreed. It is a good point. There are bots that vote in ways that take into account more than just maximizing curation rewards.
They are the whales.
Something like 88-89% of all rshares from votes each day come from the top 100 curators. That won't change in the current system whether we have 1000 users or a million.
I'm in that list.
Can you elaborate on this?
[Edit] Nevermind. Sorry, was confused by nesting.
I elaborated on my response to snowflake a little bit below.
I also nerded out a bit and added these stats to the rshares distribution page in the steemdb labs.
It has been brought to my attention that you might have found my tone rude. I apologise if I caused you any offence whatsoever. I tried to say how I respected your expression of the points you made and tried to make it clear that the points I was making were by no means a criticism of you. I am truly remorseful and regret any ill-feeling I caused.
Furthermore, I understand that you have been responsible for a great many enhancements to the steemit experience through the building of data enhancement sites such that we may all see more information surrounding our day-to-day activities. For these things, and I am sure, much more besides, I thank you most sincerely.
I have put a lot into this platform as well, in very different ways. I can get a little, upset, shall we say, when I can see the failing aspects dominate the opportunity. I stand by my beliefs and proposals. I do not stand by the claims of fools who cannot see the folly of their ways. I actually wrote a post about this very matter a few months ago prior to the current malaise.
I had the opportunity to communicate with Ned Scott on this very subject this afternoon. I am aware that he may not agree with everything I say but we share similar frustrations.
I hope you will accept my apology and understand where I am coming from.
No worries at all @ebryans! I summed up most of my response below.
They should be removed only if the system is improved as in the proposal. As you can see in the discussion these rewards mean a lot to some users. I say don't remove them if you ain't gonna make the influence situation better for them.
Simply removing curation rewards would make the influence situation for the vast majority of users much better.
Right now, ~88% of the daily reward share distribution is given out by top 100 curators. That's 88% of all rewards for all posts being determined by 100 people. I'd put money on a bet that says the majority of the top 100 (at least 50) are curating primarily to gain a return on their investment.
The remaining ~4-5k users that cast votes every day make up the remaining 12% of the distribution..
Here's the kicker: posts are made visible based on the rewards they receive.
Add all these facts up and you're looking at a system where "popular" content is being driven by a small group of people motivated by profit. All while the vast majority of the population is under represented and lacking any meaningful influence.
If the incentive to curate content you think will earn a profit (for yourself) is removed, most likely some of the people curating will stop, which will reduce the influence of the top 100 and let others (with smaller balances) make a bigger splash in the rewards pool.
TLDR - Removing curation eliminates "for profit curation", which reduces whale activity, leaving more room for everyone else to make an impact.
If they were motivated by profit they would not bring so much crap to the top.
I think they are motivated by short term profit over the well being and popularity of the platform leading to long term profit.
I addressed this point here. It's important to remember that we're looking at first generation bots. In the long run, the bots that succeed will be the ones that promote steem's long term value. A short list of things bots can do that human curators can't/won't:
Of course there's more, but hopefully that gets the point across.
Whether it does it well or not at this point, I can tell you that the goal behind my own bot is to help raise steem's price by finding and supporting quality content. Curation rewards are a secondary consideration.
Update:* Reading through remaining comments. Up above, you asked about the early voting penalty before 30 minutes, and I don't think anyone answered. I couldn't respond to that comment because of the nesting limit, so here's a link - https://steemit.com/steem/@cryptomental/steem-internals-10-payment-reward-system-demystified
I guess you are probably right, those rewards create such bad incentives anyway, the faster they are gone the better. I think they should be distributed as inflation to steem power holders though not added to author payouts.
I wrote this comment about a month ago, when someone proposed removing curation rewards from the comment pool. It's also relevant here, even moreso:
"I don't really have a strong preference, but it is important to be aware that there are deep ethical issues associated with harvesting votes on comments without rewarding the voter. This is basically what all other platforms are already doing. One of the things that makes steemit different is its attempt to reward all parties who add value. Eliminating curation awards on comments seems like a step backwards. I recommend this video, where AI expert Jaron Lanier discusses the same phenomenon on other platforms. Here is a brief excerpt that captures the argument.
The only thing that has changed since I wrote that comment is that I have thought more deeply about it, and now I do have a strong preference. Eliminating curation rewards would be saying that curators should perform unpaid labor for the authors and the steem power holders. I disagree with that proposal.
This is probably the one valid argument I have heard in favor of keeping curation rewards. (IMO)
Wish I could take credit for it. That reminds me, I really need to set some time aside to read "Who Owns The Future." ; -) Seems like it would be very relevant to steemit.
I very much respect what you have written here and the honesty with which you have phrased your points.
I would like you to understand how this makes me feel ... sick!
Over 4 months, I have written 166 posts, two of which put this platform on Page 1 of Google news item searches. I now have 2,480 SP; you did that in your sleep in one month, pretty much.
The system is outside any metric of fair. It cannot be justified.
There is absolutely no criticism of you in my writing this; I just hope that you can see that from any measure of right and wrong, that it is wrong.
I don't think it's exactly fair to compare author rewards to curation rewards, but I understand where you're coming from. Posting, witnessing, mining, and investing are all outside of the bounds of curation, and are independent systems to consider.
No worries about the tone, I got your drift and take no offense. There are things I feel just as strongly about and have the same types of adverse reactions towards in different aspects, with the bot/curation situation being one of them.
I'm happy we're having this conversation though and I hope the discussions that come of it will help change things for the better!
Just so you know, @jesta has done a buttload of stuff for the platform.
You know https://steemstats.com - @jesta built that. Himself. From scratch.
https://steemdb.com - he built that too.
and many other things..
There are tons of good authors on the site that are earning really crappy rewards for the hard work they put in. I am not in any way saying that that is not an issue. Many of us are trying to solve it though, but making attacks at other users who have gotten paid is not a good way to go about it.
What does this bit say to someone: 'There is absolutely no criticism of you in my writing this;'
I read that, but then in the same comment you said "it makes me sick" and he "earned his rewards in his sleep"
I admit I misunderstood (which I apologize for) but I'm not really getting what you were trying to get across to @jesta by saying all of that.
I have sent something else, which you will hopefully agree is as conciliatory as it could be
No worries :)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, what is your suggestion to make this right ?
This would remove an incentive for people who are diffident about writing or posting their own content to come to the platform.
How would this impact the comments, which are the heart of the "social" enagagement of Steemit? @jesta
That incentive could now be passively given to all accounts according to the above proposal. I'm not opposed to rewarding investors or incentivizing activities, but the current system is not in a good place.
As for your second comment - It wouldn't affect posting comments at all I don't think, why would it?
OK. Understood.