You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What Will Likely Happen When Steem's Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP) Is Put Into Motion?
The three changes do seem to hold together well.
I think the convergent linear curve makes a lot of sense which is something you don't mention here.
My only concern is how that might affect our ability to reward comments... surely it'll now take much larger upvote to give an above dust reward?
Have they finalised the curation % change yet? Is 50-50 actually on the cards?
Not keen on the free downvote thing as it will probably increase retaliatory flags but I do get its function as a corrective on the worst kind of abusers.
Oh, I did mention convergent linear (or something similar) above. There has been another suggestion thrown around that'd be less disruptive to micro votes while keeping the spirit of convergent linear's purpose in deterring microfarming. This is the "flat tax" solution. Instead of convergent linear's 100% "tax" at the beginning of the curve (which regresses along the curve), the "flat tax" solution just begins with something like 50% "tax" and is applied until a certain amount like $1, and this capped amount carries on linearly from then on, just enough to discourage microfarm and encourage curation, while also not screwing over genuine microvotes/interactions too much. Yeah 50/50 is likely, it's one of the requirements to encourage curation, even if naively increasing the value proposition of SP by itself.
As for downvotes, it'd definitely increase the level of toxicity, but there's also another side with increased curation rewards that make it less likely that downvotes would be used far too blindly as there are better incentives to also play nice and work together as well (while not doing too blindly as well because of the possible downvotes).
My mistake mustve missed it. I was reading quite late.
I like the idea of the capped flat tax.
I'm glad these changes are on the agenda - as @tragalgar and many others have pointed out, not changing this system makes no sense.