RE: How can the Steem blockchain distinguish itself in the marketplace?
You didn't think that such a discussion would go on without me, did you? But I needed a lot of time to think. Now let me add my 5 cents.
Actually, I don't think that the time after which the rewards come will affect anything. I would think along these lines.
STEEM has known issues:
- Spam due to the desire to get rewards easily.
- Voting bots that reward this spam.
@chriddi dreams that here on Steemit people will post rarely but very cool. It is a utopia worth striving for, but one we will never be able to achieve.
@danmaruschak very rightly pointed out that the "get rewards for posting" model is also the cause of a lot of spam.
What to do? Revolutionary changes that will require a hard fork cannot be dispensed with here. But we know that now the witnesses can be in the top 20 only if they are supported by UPVU. Will these witnesses be advocates for change?
STEEM Representatives were elected today. Note that there is not a single user among them who has a lot of SP. Why? Because none of them are interested in working for the platform, but only in making a profit. Therefore, it is necessary to make such changes in the system so that the profit depends on the benefit brought to the platform. Easier said than done.
To combat spam, changes need to be made so that, under certain conditions, curation is more profitable than writing posts. A new algorithm for calculating curation fees is needed. This algorithm should include the amount of SP as it is, but other factors should also be added here, such as:
- Voting CSI
- Reputation
- number of followers (why not?).
All these factors should increase curatorial fees. At the same time, if the SP is delegated, the curatorial fees should remain at the base level. In this way, we will increase the value of crowd curation and reduce the attractiveness of bid bots.
Well, so "my dream" is shown very reduced... ;-)
Of course, this is utopia. But it doesn't have to be utopia that responsible curators and - above all - really interested people look for exactly this and set signs in this way. But the fact that exactly this is probably also utopia frustrates me a bit right now... ;-)
Voting CSI
Nothing easier than to drive this one up the wall. And in a way that does not really correspond to the former idea of curation...
Reputation
The reputation became questionable as soon as the first buy-vote bots appeared. The intervention of the whale called sc01 in the voting process (and of course the upvu & co) has made it a meaningless number.
number of followers (why not?)
Why not? Because the „follower“ arise more, the higher your stake. I have many followers - most of them do not care. But anytime I vote somebody, I did not so far, there is a new one… ;-D
Hey, this really isn't meant to sound too negative and I appreciate your enthusiasm. But please take off those rose-colored glasses before they fall off....
Still too negative? Hm.
If I had applied to be a sc for April (like actually thought about it for a brief moment), I would have wanted to collaborate with you! Only with you... 😎
Nice that your appearance in the discussion is proof that there are still articles that are not written just for one day...
Edit:
I forgot something very important!
Remember? „Who if not you?!“
Congratulations!!!
Thanks, actually I didn't expect to be chosen.
I like how you leave no stone unturned from imperfect proposals. This allows us to ultimately arrive at something better.
I am still in favor of changing the distribution of rewards. But now I have a better idea. I believe that the number of unique views and the average time spent by the reader on the page should be hidden in the calculation of both author's and curatorial rewards.
Under these conditions, outright spam will receive small rewards even if it is voted by a bot. Owners of a large number of SP will have to look for a readership. Of course, this will not solve all problems, but it will significantly reduce the attractiveness of bid bots.
Thanks... ;-)
Only that I do not come up with good ideas myself afterwards, I do not like. May be the so long already tortured blinders... ;-)
Your idea with the view counter is brilliant.
The frontend once had a view counter. Even at the time when there were already auto-voters (must have been partly very frustrating for some ambitious writers). At some point it disappeared - and I miss it a lot.
Did it disappear with the buy vote bots? A rogue who thinks evil of it... ;-)
TEAM MILLIONAIRE
Congratulations, your comment has been successfully curated by @o1eh at 10%.
Oh, vielen Dank... :-))
We may not be able to achieve that utopia on the blockchain, but all we really need is a front-end/dapp that makes it easy to find these types of authors and filter the others out. I want to see all kinds of content getting posted (except spam, plagiarism, illegal content, etc... of course), but have an interface that lets the audience control what they see. So Utopia happens at the front-end, not on the blockchain. ;-)
Congratulations on being included!
I definitely agree with this. I think the overvaluing of posts is as big of a problem for the ecosystem as when they're undervalued. But, as you said, the people who could make the change don't have the incentive to do it, because (aside from Steemit) they're benefitting from the flaws in the current algorithm - at least in the short term.
So, we're left with individual curators acting in their own spheres of influence: "accept the things I cannot change and change the things I can." ;-) Which is why I proposed item #4. Definitely, CSI, reputation, and followers could be factors in that sort of a quality measurement. Similarly, I seem to remember that someone once used the total SteemPower of an account's followers as an alternate reputation score... maybe it was the people behind busy.org (when it existed)... not sure. The logic was that if lots of people with lots of SteemPower follow you, you're probably saying something that's worth listening to.
Thanks, it's actually a big responsibility and I don't know if I can be useful to the platform without enough resources. Sometimes one desire is not enough.
I agree that the role of manual curators is very important. We need more manual curators that are driven not only by the Steemit team, but also by the community.
However, changing the reward calculation algorithm would not be superfluous. Perhaps such a variant would be interesting:
Unfortunately, I don't think there's a practical way to get that information to the blockchain at payout time.
Views and reading time are counted at the front-end, so the blockchain doesn't know about them... and in fact, you'd have to combine data from a potentially large number of front-ends.
I suppose something might be possible through the use of "oracles", but that's beyond my knowledge.
If I were the decision-maker, I'd commission a study and use a development environment to try to optimize the algorithm. Probably by testing 3-5 candidates (including trying to 'cheat' them).