Help Fix Steem's Economy!
Help Me Fix Steem's Economy!
While most people would agree that something is wrong on this platform, many can't quite pinpoint exactly what the problem is. This is known as the Steve Buscemi's face effect.
Me starting off with that joke basically means we're stuck with this as the thumbnail
Lately, I keep hearing a lot of complaints like:
- People are far too greedy on Steemit
- We have a problem of bad culture and need to educate people to behave better
- Keep your hands to yourself you creep or I'll call the police
- How the fuck can people just get away with self voting 10 times a day?
These are all misdiagnoses of the underlying economic problem which I've written directly below in bold so lazy shits can just read that and go straight to the comments.
Problem: Under our current economy of linear and 25% curation, it is roughly 4x more financially rewarding to participate in content indifferent voting behavior (eg. self voting, vote selling) than content reflective voting behavior (eg. curation). This has lead to a complete failure in our ability to function as a content discovery and rewards platform.
Now because it takes painstaking hard work and extraordinary talent to create high quality content such as this piece you're reading, many large stakeholders have opted to sell their votes to garbage ads or self vote their own rubbish. Supporting actual good content will, on average, cost you 75% of your returns in lost opportunity, and fighting against the rubbish on here will only set you back a mere 100% of returns. Thus, it becomes too expensive for many of us to not take part in the very activity that, collectively, is destroying this platform.
Imagine you had a community that introduced a new law which rewarded a person $1000 every time they take a shit in public. Would it be surprising to discover, after a while, that the streets were flowing in diarrhea? Would you try to rectify this situation by asking people to be less greedy? Or perhaps try to educate people to shift from a culture of shitting on the streets to one of, well, not shitting on the streets? Would there be a point in asking how the fuck do you even manage to shit 10 times a day?
Of course not. You'd change the law that rewarded shitting in public so highly. Similarly, don't be surprised if people engage in the exact activity we've decided to reward the most: vote farming (be it vote selling or self voting). Now, our approach to rectify this should be clear:
Mission: We need to devise and implement a new economic system that rewards the behavior we want with the most competitive returns while sacrificing the least in terms of trade offs.
You get the behavior you reward the most on here. The idea is to close the gap between content indifferent and content reflective rewards by incentivizing the former less and the latter more in terms of returns. @kevinwong and I prefer using a combination of measures (slight superlineararity, higher curation 50% and 10% separate downvotes) modestly, which together, should be strong enough to give good curation a competitive edge over mindless vote selling and self voting. Of course other measures are perhaps available, and they all have their trade offs. Some are really fucking bad ideas, and I might write about them another day.
It is quite frustrating to see the overall lack of clarity and urgency in terms of efforts being directed to fixing this problem that's completely undermining our platform over the past year. Focusing on UI or communities as a solution is like getting diagnosed with testicular cancer and deciding that the best way to treat it is by getting a nose job and your anus bleached.
The good news is that the failure of this system is entirely fixable; it isn't at all something inherent to decentralization or stake based voting, nor is it some moral or cultural problem. We can change the economics here to incentivize the behavior we want instead of swimming through our diarrhea filled streets.
If you believe something should be done to better align rewards with desirable behavior, please let witnesses and Steemit Inc know about it. Do it in person if you're attending Steemfest 3. Kevin will be there and he'll give you a private lap dance if you help us fix the economy.
I've gained 20 pounds over the past few months just being depressed af over this.. so I hope you guys love an emo lap dancer who's a bit on the thicc side.. *wink wink*
Too bad for ya
I like kevin
kevin thinks my ideas are good
I don't like people who are not kevin
people who are not kevin think my ideas are shit
I also don't think your ideas are shit. :)
Do you think mine is?
I would prefer a curve which started as n^2 / exponential (thus flat), and then later changed into linear which would work against self-voting as well as excessive rewards for single posts.
@clayop had a similar idea.
yes I agree
in the other post by kevin we mention that the superlinear part can have a linear tail, which is exactly what we meant
it doesn't even have to be n^2 at the start. It can be even be as simple as just two linear lines joined together, one with a low gradient at the start and after a certain point it's continued by another linear line with a higher gradient. Honestly even something as simple as that will do
of course you'll still need higher curation and downvote incentives. They all have their downsides but the more you use of one measure, the less you'll need of the other measures.
The witnesses hate superlinear of any kind so this is not going to get through for now, but eventually we'll revisit it. Otherwise what's going to stop me from creating hundreds of accounts a month and ninja farming small comments all over the place? You can't downvote what you can't detect in a cost effective way, and any type of superlinear counters this last exploit that I can think of.
I didn't mention it in detail here mostly because I was throwing some jokes around. I should do a more serious write up at some point
That's interesting ... even if I read his post, it seems that I have missed that part (or it was in a further post which I was not aware of).
Anyway, I really appreciate your efforts!
I think it's in there
ctrl f - linear tail, he just mentions it in passing and i remember reading it. We discussed it a lot and a lot of us, apparently you and clayop as well, reach similar conclusions. I'm not too focused about credit etc, there aren't really any rewards for coming up with the most creative or even applicable solutions. Let's just do something reasonable and change this economic system that's a complete failure right now
I don't think anyone thinks your ideas are shit. I think the main issues are just 1. how to achieve consensus on fixes, 2. how to prioritize fixes, 3. when is the appropriate time to shift focus to economic changes (e.g. post-SMT), etc.
"People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully."
Steem was built for content creators. Early ppl from 2016 are now upset since their content is weak. So they think something is broken. Atm most value flows to real solid content creators. These ppl at a few thousand Steem will dominate this place in the future since they only focus on producing content.
They don't have time to complain every single day. They have a solid content strategy. 50% curation would be communism. Curation in many ways is leeching. It will be more automated in the future.
Don't make me laugh.
https://steemit.com/busy/@whatsup/https-steemitimages-com-0x0-https-arcange-eu-steem-images-2018-10-23-levels-en-png-i-love-steem-but-in-2-years-we-have-only
You can deny it all you want. At the moment video is currently what has the highest value. And they get massive value from dtube support. Text has less value by the market place. The chart you linked to is because of how Steem was shared out in 2016. Which means it will take a long time to balance it out. To people that want more Steem.
And where is that coming from? Free stake from Steemit inc, if it wasn't for that dtubers would probably make the same amount vimm streamers make without the generous curation of @thejohalfiles and a few others.
That is true, leverage will always probably come from a few specific powerful sources at the moment
Nobody wants Steem. No company is out there waiting to leverage on it.
https://steemit.com/video/@spectrumecons/7wmi1dqw
Might do you good to know whats actually happening.
"Nobody wants Steem." That is logically incorrect. People are buying and selling Steem every day so that proves you are wrong. "No company is out there waiting to leverage on it." another lie. There are companies at the moment that leverage Steem.
Video still has the highest value. Or do you try to make an argument that video is not the highest value by linking to an article without actually writing your own thoughts. Video is the future. As well as 3D worlds, Virtual Reality Worlds and AR worlds.
I like a lot of what you're saying, and do hope the pendulum is swinging toward quality, but in addition to not being sure that's true, I haven't the faintest idea of what you mean by "50% curation would be communism"
But more to the point, not sure 50% is a fix, since it also wouldn't stop large accounts from upvoting themselves. They'd still get all the rewards, their author rewards, and curation rewards from discovering their own content. And if someone jumped on their content to get more of their rewards, well, they'd get those author rewards, and still part of the curation, too.
Someone correct my math if you think it's wrong.
Posted using Partiko Android
Resteemed...
Have been on Steemit for about 18 months... what little I know is that Both You & @KevinWong are very smart.
Thank You @Trafalgar 4 writing this straight-forward, simple to understand Post.
Cheers !!
hi, @trafalgar,
We are the Steem witness currently active on Latam, we are maintaining a big community (Comunidad Latina) and a lot of tools such Cotify,
Our community and Latam users in general still is growing and we want to reach the TOP 20 in order to provide a better support to them.
Could be a way to receive your support by voting our witness (@cotina) and help us to achieve that goal?
Proof of Calories.
Proof of THICCCCC
haha :D
THICCCCCCC
@kevinwong .. I can't wait to watch that private lapdance on stage when they air the SF on youtube hahah
peace!
Is there any other kind...????
Aren't most lap dancers some variation of the emo variety? Thicc is a bonus, though. 😁
1:07 ;)
I thought you guys would appreciate this one.
https://steemit.com/steem/@teamsteem/why-i-advice-against-linear-reward
Thanks! I’ll chime in later if I have recovered from feeling sick talking about it..
Read this.
I can recommend the potato diet !
I just became depressed af to find this 6 months later so I can't resteem it anymore. But it's good to go back to your profile and finding this linked to your latest article @kevinwong. Come to Vancouver. I'll hook you up with some curvy friend of mine, she'll make your depression evaporate quick af.
No we dont. The proposal you guys are making is a really bad idea. Its bad from so many points of view that its hard to even start to point out the least bad effect this would cause.
There is only 1 fix to this. And that fix includes banning certain behavior. That will never happen.
I dont know if youre making this proposal with good intentions in mind but everything points to you guys using your position as whales to increase your ROI.
Youre using your position you gained by throwing around a few $ through curating to push a profit maximization change for yourself. I mean just look at the positive comments from the people that would be most screwed by this.
This is a tragically bad idea that would change absolutely nothing for the better except increase the current curators profit.
You dont want to adjust to the system. You want the system to adjust to you.
Its even more tragically bad since in principle its just "trickle down" in disguise....
You had dtube move towards 50% curation few months ago and it changed almost nothing in curator behavior. You still had dtube and Kpine supporting most of the quality content creators.
What youre essentially doing is cutting everyone else earning potential, wrecking bots, alienating passive investors that couldnt care less about curating (that by the way will always be passive), assuming large accounts have some kind of glorified talent in recognizing quality content, trying to grab more power for yourself (your right of course)...
You assume STEEM is just a content monetization platform when in reality its a token distribution platform.
The change to content placement STEEM could actually benefit from, which ofc doesnt require a such a radical change, is a STEEMIT UI design change, a bot upvote filter.
You disguise your proposal as a "lets fix trending", "lets make quality content win"..... and you know who will make good content win?
We will!
If you want to do something for the platform, focus on marketing. I just hope this never passes or STEEM will literally go down the toilet.
You're the guy who once tried to tell me you were earning a 10% profit by spending 15 STEEM and getting 15.023 STEEM in return. I thought I'd start there.
You're claiming these folks have an ulterior motive, so I'd like to point to that link again. I have reason to believe, based on the things you said there, you have an ulterior motive. You're here to defend your approach where you purchase votes and hope to squeak out tiny profits. That comes first to you, and your content doesn't matter, it's just there.
By the sounds of what you're saying here, you don't want curators to come along and vote for your work. By the sounds of what you're saying here, you'd rather earn your .023 STEEM by pulling 14 meaningless dollars out of the reward pool with purchased votes, instead of pressing the vote button ONCE to earn MORE than .023 STEEM by utilizing your own SP as a tool to earn curation rewards.
A bot upvote filter would be like sweeping your kind under the rug at this point. If you're removing $14 out of the reward pool just so you can make .023 STEEM, you're wasting resources. That action of wasting resources should be downvoted and that $14 returned to the reward pool.
I have reason to believe you'd prefer things stay the same so you can continue exploiting the reward pool, so you can scrape pennies off the floor. The platform you want sounds like this to me:
I have a two dollar coin. If you would like to earn the two dollar coin, you must first give me a 10 dollar bill, then scrub my toilet. Then you can have your two dollar coin.
You contradict yourself quite often. Your actions speak louder than your words. You don't want to see people with SP earning more, yet you pay people with SP 15 STEEM so you can earn .023 STEEM. I think your head is screwed on backwards. You wrote a post, pressed many buttons and paid people 15 STEEM so you could earn .023 STEEM. Why not powerup that STEEM in your wallet, press the vote button once, help someone, and earn more than .023 STEEM?
@steemmatt applauds you:
But to me you sound more like an ass kissing yes man here to apply spin and defend a few vote dealers and their goddamn Monkey Posts.
Anyway...
Have a good day. Was good to see you again.
Yep, that whole comment loses all integrity with the booster vote.
He didn't boost the original comment, I did for visibility, @lordbutterfly then asked me if I boosted it, I said yes. That will say he did no effort in pushing it to the top
You've actually done a fine job of demonstrating why actual curation is important. You bought this top slot and disguised it as popular opinion because you and possibly a loud minority agrees. No different than if this post was about Coke and someone wrote in to speak about their bad experience with Coke while Pepsi paid for top positioning. It's shady. It would be hard to take the Coke hater's views seriously.
I downvoted for the simple fact, the top slot only required $4 but I saw $12 next to the comment. Since the point of the purchase was to place it at the top, $8 was a waste of resources, so I returned a portion of that to the pool, giving others an opportunity to earn it. There's no point in wasting $8 and if people want to treat it like it's worthless, it will become worthless.
It's all transparent so there is no secrecy here. It's not shady since it's transparent. Anyone can go look who buys a vote or promotion. I did this because I felt strongly that it should have more visibility. Now since this boost of comment was something that was possible when I went to the promotion page I thought it would be no big deal.
It was done for visibility. Did it work? Yes it got more visibility and feedback. And I appreciate it. And yes I looked at it with some margins. A bigger numbers creates a bigger response. I wouldn't call it a waste since I think conversations on important nuanced topics as governance has value for the whole Blockchain ecosystem.
I also would call it a popular opinion since I would say if someone puts lots of capital behind something that shows a level of care for the platform. Since it shows some form of investment. I would call important conversations more valuable than any other thing. But I understand people have different points of views about governance and how they want things to be. You need a range of various people to create a balanced network.
I didn't comment because there was money beside the post. I've been visiting and reading this blog since it came out. It could have been down at the bottom, I would have said the same damn thing.
Part of what you're calling 'feedback' was you telling another member how to ask questions properly.
You feel strongly about it, you see value in it, but not everyone sees the world as you do. That goes for me as well. I see the world as I do, and I think it's shady. Just because I can see an employee helping themselves to cash out of the register, that doesn't make it okay.
I could spend $1 million dollars to buy a billboard slot and claim my hockey team is the best in the world. So what if their record is 0 wins and 20 losses? Because I spent money to say something, that makes it true? Because I spent money, that means I love my favorite hockey team even more?
Sounds more like the money is clouding your judgement.
Sometimes I think you're another one here with their head screwed on backwards. And I mean that in a nice way. I just don't know what other words to use to best describe what I see. Sometimes it feels like opposite day here and everyone is just acting weird on purpose because those are the rules.
P.S. I don't have time to sit here and talk in circles tonight.
Exactly we are all different and view at things with slight differences (or big differences). But my base view is that I think money has a larger importance in how it shapes reality. I think money creates reality as you can shape people's life with it in any way you like.
And some of us are too different that it is as you say, it would only be talk in circles and never get anywhere. I enjoy reading a lot of your stuff, it's extremely well written and I would even call it poetry sometimes, but I also know that I would not look at stuff the same way sometimes, but I can at the same time 100% agree with you.
Some people are very hard to read. I like to test reality and sometimes even confuse people. I like to play roles sometimes. Experiment around. And if you find someone else that maybe do the same you may get max confusion. Haha. Well we are on something called Earth with unlimited ignorance. So there is lots of stuff you can do here and spend time with!
But circles are the best shape to talk in.
Thank you, folks, be sure to tip your waitress, I'll be here all.... Eternity.
Posted using Partiko Android
It's not super transparent, because there are plenty of new users who have no idea what upvote bots are. There was a bot that tried to post about that, but it got killed. This is an odd war.
I'm just watching. I care, but I can't say I know what's right, and also everyone is really emotional about social media, so that's kinda scary.
Posted using Partiko Android
First off all the 15 STEEM thing did perplex me for a day which is why i did a little test. It seems that HF20 screwed the reward pool balance and it was dropping for quite a while. I did not notice that the first few days or so. The 10% thing is actually correct. Just click 100% powerup, if reward pool balance relatively stable, which it wasnt at the time, you get your 10% ROI.... I was not correct about that at the time of our first discussion.
But thats beside the point......
The rest of the stuff about "ulterior motives" you wrote is basically nonsense, im sorry to say. Wanting to make more money is not an ulterior motive so everything you write below are just attempts at personal attacks stemming from strawmanning my argument. Them using their position to push forward a proposal so they can earn more money is in no way sinister or unexpected.
....But you do that a lot, haha, actually makes your comments an interesting read.
Haha. I always found these claims interesting. People actually coming forward and essentially saying:
Your actions MUST coincide with my values! If you do not conduct yourself based on my set of values then you are a resources waster and you should be punished..
You paint bot upvotes as wasting resources, completely disregarding that the SP delegator made a conscious choice to delegate that SP for use of the community. What their motivation is doesnt matter. What matters is that the community has a choice of using that SP.... SP that would otherwise be out of their reach, to empower themselves, promote themselves, support others...whatever they decide to do... @acidyo Like the guy that boosted my comment here. We dont have the stake to boost but we can use our own hard earned SBD to show our support.
We have a choice and tools we can use. And THAT is better then begging.
What is wasteful about that?
Of course the answer is "Nothing"...
Its just waste of resources because you say so.
Haha. As i said, its quite entertaining to read your stuff because you straw man so beautifully.
I dont want to see people with SP earning more.. Yes. That is what i said.. Bravo. haha. :D
Thx for tip on how i should use my money, but ill keep it as is. I have my reasons to keep it that way and i dont have to explain to anyone my reasons.
Actually quite a few people asked why i keep the STEEM i do in my savings instead of powering up.
Its funny. They say it in such a judgmental way. Judging me for not using my money the way they think i should..
Yes-men? For who? What im doing is completely mental since kissassery is what gets you upvotes here. Not going against ideas of guys like, Traf, Acidyo, Kevin.
Theres a handful of curators and you attacking their proposal is the dumbest thing to do from a monetary perspective.
Not challenge their ideas. So really im more of an "ass" then a "kiss-ass". My Dindex is probably pretty high. ;)
Im just a guy that thinks that we shouldnt be constricting choice and options available, or increase our dependency on just a few people.
That we shouldnt take from everyone to give to just a few.
Id actually rather have 0.5$ payouts for the rest of my time here then beg at the feet of a few curators for a few scraps from their table.
Have a good day. ;)
And what you said about me not caring about content or curation... Thats completely false.
We need to expand the economy and add all kinds of new value propositions. Not constrict it by catering to a few curators.
To add one more thing, individual large stake curators are for most part completely inefficient. Theyre not even using their curation earning potential to what would be a decent degree. Only maybe kpine jumps out from the pack but even he could do better.
Increasing their curation and cutting author earnings so that "maybe" they would be more effective in the future is a huge gamble that could lead to passive investors leaving. And reality is that there is just not enough of them willing to do the work to make any positive change. Its trickle down (assuming that by making favorable changes for the rich will lead to more wealth for the poor class. That the wealth will trickle down) to a massive degree.
That doesnt work. Atm, the system we have now is superior to their proposal.
If someone makes another proposal, it might be drastically better then what we have now. This just isnt it.
I didn't say that. You're using blockquotes incorrectly, putting words in my mouth.
Who's begging? I'm confused. Is receiving a vote from a curator, begging?
I have reason to believe the tone of voice you create within your mind when reading words has deceived you.
What I asked was:
That's a question. It has a question mark on the end. A step people take before they make conclusions.
Ass kissing doesn't get you upvotes here. Most of us see right through it. Just because you see ass kissers, that doesn't mean they are being rewarded. If you're assuming anyone being rewarded is a beggar and an ass kisser, you've insulted and thrown thousands of people under the bus for no reason at all. Showing your true colors is appreciated though.
A few curators? Everyone with SP stands a chance of earning more as a curator. Even those with 100 SP. How is that constrictive?
When everyone delegates their SP to a handful of accounts, you become dependent on purchasing votes from a few people. They earn 90% of the reward pool, content creators will be lucky to see 10%.
When everyone sees there's more money in curating, they take their delegations back and now suddenly we have thousands more people with SP they can use to vote on whatever they want.
Like I said, and I mean this in the nicest way possible: I think your head is screwed on backwards.
When you talk, I don't feel confident you know what you're talking about.
You have a good day as well.
Yeah, youre probably right about the blockquotes. Ill change it to italic once im done with this reply... Wasnt implying these are your words, im drawing conclusions i see following and expressing implications of your words, based on what you said.
This is referring to increased dependency on individual large stake curators that will arise from this change.
Well not really. People seem to be hung on how and in what way someone uses their assets here. What your intention was i cant say. Nor did i imply anything. What i can point out is what i have noticed others do/say when raising the same point of what i, or anyone else does with their wallet. It doesnt mean you are the same in any regard, but i did notice that whenever someone did make a reference to the couple STEEM i have in my savings it would be in this manner as stated above just in case you were doing the same thing.
Haha. This is why i love discussing with you so much.
I love it! :D
But no, seriously.. The kiss-assing isnt the only thing that drives upvotes. What drives it is "same class" placement, altruism, virtue signaling, bot payments, contributions, quality, hundreds of other things good or bad, and of course kiss-assery. My point is that kiss-assery would be incentivized more with this proposal.
And on the point of you guys smelling it a mile away... Thats just not true.
A smart kiss-ass knows how to do it without being noticed. And you cant notice it. Is the person just a kind, loving and sugary individual or is he faking it because of the incentive to do so?
You cant tell. Fakeness and kiss assery is actually beneficial to this platform. Reduces drama and conflicts..
Still... It drains integrity from the community.
.... and less as a _________. The effects of that i covered bunch of times in the comments from many angles.
Well i share the same opinion of your comments and arguments (only natural, or we wouldnt be on drastically opposing sides of the argument, would we?) even though i would never make that statement as bluntly as you since i find to be made in bad taste and unnecessary..
Though, I do feel confident that you might have a very narrow view of what STEEM is and what its future is/could be.
I see your point of view being simply that of a blogger. Completely focused on content placement.
But seriously though, its been fun. Your zest for discussion, however wrong i consider you to be, is a breath of fresh air on a platform where attention is inherently to DPOS, in many cases, not all, dependent on stake...
Ill go fix the blockquoute now. ;)
Narrow? I've been quietly studying this entire experiment for over two years. Sure, my main focus here is being a content creator. Sure, there's a paint job, but I like to know what's under the hood.
In order for the engine to run efficiently, every part must work together. I'm seeing hoses with duct tape and hearing a knock. Something isn't right. I look around, I see others, many others, noticing the same things as me. Some parts are working against each other. There's no point in denying that.
This place is still in development, change is inevitable, we must continue to experiment.
I don't think I'm right or wrong. I'm more about moving forward, getting there, looking for new problems, finding solutions.
As for how I word things; being straightforward, blunt. Try not to focus on that stuff. I wanted to squeeze your head awhile back when I was trying to explain simple math to you and you were having no part of it, but did I squeeze your head? No. That's just how you are. You suck at math. Was that a personal attack? No. It was a fucking joke.
@nonameslefttouse - would just like to clarify a bit of a potentially misleading reference. While I do generally appreciate when people speak their minds without fear to try to spark change, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm giving them a standing ovation in agreement with their message.
Fair enough @steemmatt. I read it like, "Yeah! Stick it to the man!" I'll take the blame for that.
This place is getting better though. People are feeling more free to be open. No flag wars, no trolling. Even I'm being given a chance to speak and I know I can be a bit abrasive at times, nobody is shooting me down for being me, so that's cool, because I truly mean no harm, I just can't seem to mince my fucking words well enough some days.
Thanks man. In hindsight, it was a pretty dumb spot for me to make that comment, especially seeing how the dialogue blew up afterwards.
In the tone of a high school yearbook signature, "Don't ever change".
I like mince in pies and politics. But your words seem fine, even without the deliciousness that mince adds to meat.
God I can't wait for mincemeat pie season.
Posted using Partiko Android
Wow, this post had some funny points, but @nonameslefttouse your comment is even better! Seriously so many people simply get not enough returns for their bought bid botds, and they still keep doing it :S They'd easily earn more by getting curated once in a while. And it would be even better if there will be more curators or stronger curators.
For example I like that another platform allows self voting posts, but self voting comments is simply a waste (you get 1/4th the value), would it be so hard to implement that? And after 5 posts per day for the self vote value to drop drastically? You're not banning it this way, but you're making it less desirable :)
You mean buying votes from bidbots as adjust to the system? They've been saying change the culture for months, don't see much result tho, just as the dtube 50/50 curation. DTube's 50/50 curation was a failed marketing too, few were really aware of that.
Nothing is wrong. This Blockchain is an open system. People have a range of different ways they can use proof-of-brain to earn more Tokens. People will be people. Nothing is wrong with people.
The phrase "Proof of Brain" in an ecosystem ruled by bots is Orwellian Doublespeak on a level which is almost comical. Almost a perfect poster child for George Carlin's skit on Euphemisms.
Brains are important!
Thats the point of view you have and thats fine. But.. if you were being really honest, though i dont agree in the slightest, you would say its "ruled by people using tools".
Id say that youre actually closer to Doublespeak then @phoneinf is. Obscuring the nature of what is actually going on.
I replied to steemmatt here https://steemit.com/steem/@trafalgar/re-steemmatt-re-trafalgar-help-fix-steem-s-economy-20181028t014608624z
It addresses the same points you raised
Great. I see your points but responding wouldnt really add much to my overall argument. Basically id just repeat what i wrote above and in a few other comments and go in circles of repeating the same thing over again.
You seem a bit too "composed" in your comments for my liking so i think ill have more fun with Nonames. He seems a bit more fun... hehe. :D
At the end of the day, thats what its all about.
But thx for the reply.
You have some major balls, but this is the type of voice that opens eyes instead of kisses asses.
This post has received a 30.69 % upvote from @boomerang.
Oh the irony
The problem is that Kevin and Traf will make more money?
Responding with a 1 line comment to 300 word comment is a bit waste of time. The original comment goes very much in depth in how he looks at things.
His argument has a fundamental flaw: that big investors are not supposed to look out for themselves. That large stakeholders should not have a huge say in a "Staked" economy.
Hence the question. And there is nothing wrong with answering that question.
No he is not saying that.
He lays out his views in a long detailed way. Responding with a 1 line comment to something nuanced is disrespectful as the original commenter invested lots of time to create his thoughts down on paper. If someone writes a deep comment there should be an appropriate detailed response that use quotes from the original comment and explains things with some depth and consideration.
It's easy to try to pick small things from a long comment and try to lead things down to 1 specific path. That is easy to do. Life is more nuanced. So it needs to be handled with some care. And not lead stuff off topic. Since it shows that even if you would get a long depth comment back in return you would probably respond with a short one again. Which shows low care levels in expression. It tries to bring down a conversation to something overly short and too simplistic.
Some person investing a lot of time and energy to develop something proper won't take an overly short response serious as it will be a waste of time.
Oooo. This is what someone was talking about when they said you were trying to control how people comment.
Guilty. Sometimes I only have a few words to respond with. It's sometimes frustrated me that people go on for pages when I have something to say about their premise that would lead the conversation in another direction.
I wonder if we'll ever get past the gap between how we expect to be able to converse and what social media is capable of conveying.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why would you say that? I actually claim thats its completely understandable and expected.
The thing is that when everyone else is paying the price, its important to speak up even if it means that Kevin might decide never to "gift " you again.
Seems it's better we all stay in the ditch than give people an incentive to reignite their curating fuck-o-meter which has a little downside of making whales richer.
I'm trying to see your angle here but all I see is prejudice.
Voting for someone's post doesn't mean you are gifting him or her anything.
You are one real prejudiced mf haha
Prejudice? Im not seeing any here. Re-ignite whose curation?
Freedoms? Fyrsts? Cmon.
Im not sure how you arent seeing this, but they want to cut everyones potential payouts by 25%. This means slower growth for smaller accounts and faster growth for large accounts. A gap will widen drastically. Also this essentially kills bots so you cant even empower yourself but are rather dependent even more on a few whales that want to curate.
Hehe. Its not about Kevin and Traf making more money. Its about what will happen just so Kevin and Traf could make more money.
And you believe Kevin and Traf have MORE to lose if their intentions are "not good" and these proposed changes bring forth behaviors that will make Steem more worthless?
This change wont bring any change of behavior. It will change the way the behavior is exhibited but it will stay the same. As it did always.
This change is incredibly dangerous because its essentially a aggressive move by the curator whales against the community in an attempt to grab more power for themselves which they can do, because "curation" has always been seen as a major strength of the platform and the 5-10$ they drop on your post has a huge impact on an individual. (wow someone gave me 10$ for something i wrote) Therefor you assume these guys can do no wrong.
Problem is that we moved away from the "gift" economy which is a extremely small part of the larger picture.
Not one thing that is written in this post can you hang your hat on and say: Yes this change will lead to improvement in this "area".
Not one thing would change for the better, unless you are a curator large account like Kevins and Trafs, then you would get a higher ROI.
Instead of creating a fairer distribution across the board, creating a middle class, they want to empower themselves to a higher degree.
They are essentially saying that by increasing their returns you will be better off.
That is wrong on so many levels.
Curator behavior would not change and everyone else would take a huge cut.
You would be essentially increasing community dependency greatly on just a few large stake holders that already have a great effect on the gift economy.
This is ludicrous on so many levels.
Steem was never envisioned as a gift economy. It was and is based on directing rewards to those who contribute value.
Gifting can be done using the transfer function. That's not ever been the idea of the reward pool and voting.
Though I will say it wouldn't necessarily be an altogether bad idea to design a system around. But it isn't Steem.
Kevin and Traf like ^1.3 or ^1.2 superlinear (which they call 'mild' but I disagree) but very few others do. It isn't likely to happen, so perhaps consider the rest of the proposal without it as a more realistic take.
I might have expressed myself wrongly there, but STEEM being a "gift economy" is the idea being held by quite a few people which was the point i was trying to make.
The whole problem around all and any discussions that take this direction, i think stems from one single thing..
People have a different view of what value is.
On one side you have people trying to tell you what should and should not be considered value, what should be considered more or less valuable, and on the other hand you have people (and i consider myself in that camp) that say: "What ever you decide."
Well if they contribute good content AND make money, I don't mind. If they're making money at the net expense of Steem, that's bad.
80% of the reward pool is going to plankton, minnows and dolphins. This is far better most economies of the world.
There appear to be many orcas and whales happy to spread the love.
Communities are popping up all over the place.
Once SMTs arrive many Steemians will care more about other tokens than a Steem utility token anyway.
But the main drawback in your idea - why would anyone want to post when they are only receiving 50% of the reward showing on their post? This would turn more people off than it would attract. If anything 25% of the reward is too much.
It also won't solve anything - if the bad actors want 100% - your plan just means they don't have to work as hard to get it.
I don't see any problems here that won't fix themselves with the natural redistribution of Steem as people come and go, plus the introduction of SMTs.
I think you are wrong about communities too. They make a big difference.
A single whale can't change the whole system. But they can make a difference to many. And with discount accounts they can now start onboarding them too.
I really haven't followed your career here since the days of the Steem Wars - but Team Australia is still going strong and now SteemChurch too and this is just what I am doing.
If you genuinely want to make a difference and build the value of your investment - get on the ground and use your capital to create opportunities for the newbies. (Perhaps you are - I just don't know so sorry if I am wrong.)
Cheers.
SirKnight.
Posted using Partiko Android
Where did you get that 80% statistic? That's good to see such a healthy proportion. However, made the 80% is influenced by paid vote bots? So the poor is technically paying more.
Actually it is 90%
https://steemit.com/steemchurch/@sirknight/steemchurch-strategy-update-power-up-or-perish
But with 1% of votes being cast by the vote bid bots - it is probably closer to 80%
Posted using Partiko Android
My take on the 50/50 curation thing is that yeah, you will in theory lose a bit of your author rewards but you will also be getting extra curation money from the posts you vote on, so in the long run, it might balance out.
There's also the chance of getting more votes your self since more people would be voting out there trying to find the best authors to put their votes on so the lost of 25% might not even hurt you that much in the long run.
Posted using Partiko Android
I just don't believe the theory would work. It assumes firstly that those who are currently self-voting at 25:75 would do it less at 50:50. There is no evidence to suggest this. So now those in effective communities need to use more SP to reward minnows the same as the otherwise would have - and these minnows get nothing for their 50% curation anyway, which was your idea on why it could remain fair.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why are people in these communities “rewarding minnows” instead of rewarding creators of the content that they like?
This notion that we must reward all of the minnows is at the core of most of the problems with this platform. This is supposed to be based on social media concepts (and investment/stakeholding).
Do you go around Facebook or YouTube and only look for posts and videos from unknown users who get no attention just to give them a like or an upvote? Or do you just vote them up because you enjoyed the content?
Why does one’s wallet size matter so much here when it comes to who deserves your vote?
Very fair point, but I must say that that it's far more common than not for a whale to continue to upvote and engage with their fellow whales because they have more earning potential for them.
This leaves a small window for interacting with others, which would make this place retain and attract more people, which is healthier for the long run.
I struggle to find whales that are committed to providing quality upvotable content, yet as you know, the posts are still upvoted and supported (and realistically for reasons likely outside of it being good content).
The wallet size doesn't matter - it is our community based discussion which does.
Posted using Partiko Android
This has to do with the way money is distributed. Not just on Steemit, but in the world in general. The market favours people who look out for themselves and themselves only. It favours people willing to step on others in order to make a profit.
People who are nice and compassionate tend to have less money at their disposal due to not being willing and/or able to go the extra mile to be as ruthless as necessary.
You don't have to be morally ruthless to make more money. You can build a better business without compromising on morals.
Agree in part schattenjaeger - the truly successful people in life are those who create opportunities for others and then take a share of the profit along the way. Capitalism is not black and white and not everyone can be the CEO. But a great CEO might be able to find employment opportunities for many - at the same time maximising returns.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah, it wasn't a knock on capitalism, per se.
Couldn't have wrote it better
This is not true. When Steem rewarded people who formed actual friendships people then said "people are voting for themselves and their friends". So now that doesn't happen as much and people complain about something else?
You can't get everything. There are tradeoffs. Which tradeoffs do you prefer?
Me? I was always a fan of the old system.
Because they receive 0% of the reward if they post it on Facebook.
This is true - and once the Steem interfaces are as good as Facebook they are sure to come flocking across for 50% - but no doubt they will come quicker for 75%.
Posted using Partiko Android
50% is still way bigger than 0%. Anyone who will pass up that chance may not be cut out for this place.
You are right holybranches - and you know what... 25% is also better than 0% - so is 15%. You know what - f@#k the authors - let's pay them 10% and us curators can keep 90% for ourselves. And if they don't want to work for their 10%... well they just weren't cut out for Steem - lazy f@#ks.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yeah. And if they want the 90% share, they should power up and vote others. No need getting all emotional. With 50/50, you make posts to compete with 50% author rewards then go out and VOTE OTHERS to get back the other 50%. Simple vicious circle.
Truth is, you will never find a percentage that everyone is happy with anyway. I have always thought 25/75 was a reasonable split.
Posted using Partiko Android
Gotta agree here. The more deeply into this post's comments I delve, the more I think, there may be problems, but this is not a solution to them, mathematically.
The problem is not, how to financially incentivize readers, but rather, how to attract users. I'm in comedy, and this problem shows up in our communities. So many shows are just comedians watching other comedians. You get real audiences not by bribing them, but by doing good work consistently.
Again, not sure what the solution is, but if 80% of rewards are going to small fry, I think we're on the right path.
Posted using Partiko Android
This is a pressing matter, reason why you had to wake up the sleeping dog. This issue has been a general problem that can't be fixed on the platform, the best place to savage the situation is at steemfest since Ned will be present.
You need to get already that steemit is not about content discovery.
It is about competing-for-eyeballs economy.
Under this paradigm steemit is alive and well and made a huge leap with HF20 recently
I can easily get behind the idea of 50/50 curation, that would encourage you to hunt for good content or join the best curation leagues since there's a chance for you to get great rewards with that.
I love the idea behind subsidizing flags, I've seen others proposing something more radical like a second voting mana bar just for flags, what's your take on this?
I would need to do some more reading to understand the impact of going to 1.3 instead of linear since I came to Steem after superlinear was gone and don't have any experience with the previous system.
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't know about the flag idea but I do agree with the 50/50 thing. The flag idea I think could encourage flagging for reasons of jealousy/envy rather than legit reasons. How would we prevent flag abuse?
The idealistic answer would be that users would only flag real spam and plagiarism but we all know that won't happen.
The ideal would be that this alternative mana bar for flagging is only a fraction of the size of your real real mana bar so it would run out faster so if you want to do positive flagging or bad flagging, you only have so much flags a day, let's say, 3 full flags a day or something like that, therealwolf released another post regarding this and he explains it a bit better.
I was just about to make a post regarding the flaws I've noticed with this platform. It seems to me that there is a perpetual motion machine of sorts in regards to "acts that get a reward", rather than acts that will benefit the community. Interesting post, and thank you for sharing.
thanks for reading
the problem is that the acts that gain the most rewards and acts that benefit the community the most should align
they don't, but it's fixable
Why doesn't Steemit Inc hire an economist to help with this? Or what about economists or students who post on Steem who can help with this?
Maybe an Economist also cannot answer this. Because you won't learn about a system like steem in school. This is a new ecology that did not exist before. Building it well is hard. We need to take responsibility, i believe. Thanks to OOP for doing something about it.
The last time they had a person who understands economics in there, it was @dan, and his views were considered evil, and he was effectively smoked out of the company.
That's probably a reason why.
@dan isn't/wasn't an economist either. I agree he had more understanding than the current people in charge but an actual economist would be someone who focuses only on that problem.
There are economists capable of approaching these sorts of problems but it is a narrow sub-specialty, there aren't many of them, and they don't necessary want to work for Steemit either (although many would probably consult, likely at a pretty high price). I commented with some specifics on this sort of thing a while back when Steemit made a post asking for community input. As far as I can tell they acted on none of it (not just my input, all of it).
Anyway, just hiring smart people/economists with some vaguely related background would be good. Smart people can often come up to speed and figure out a lot. Part of that involves knowing how to navigate the literature and connect with others in the field. There is currently no one with any vaguely related background at Steemit as far as I can tell. Perhaps that is one reason they avoid these problems and work on things like SMTs.
I like both you and @kevinwong, maybe that is just because of my slight affection for Asians. I completely agree that the current model is not working, this place is festering of late and something needs to be done. A 50/50 split might be the best way to accomplish this.
However going off of your post, you have only looked at the economic model and neglected the social aspect of the platform. Your notions would be accurate if this were a purely economic platform, but there is much more to it than just that. It's the same reason billions of people are on Facebook without receiving a penny. The social aspect really should not be overlooked.
The social aspect is very powerful, but when it is smothered by self votes and the "me over everything" attitude, it gets drowned out.
If this was purely about money than I never would have stood up to clowns like bernie sanders knowing full well it would result in the loss of potential steem earnings. The same goes for many of the communities and votes that take place, people want to feel connection and Steem has done this in the past.
There is a lot to untangle with the current economic model but I think its important to understand there is much more than just the economic part to it.
The economy has to work first. Otherwise to quote @dana-edwards elsewhere in this thread, "The ship sinks".
There are many different ways to work on social aspects, and many different sorts of social aspects that can find a niche. Facebook is very different from Twitter which is very different from Reddit which is very different from Steemit (which indeed may be very different from some future Steemit). These can all work.
Getting the economy to work is the first priority.
The economy needs to work, but it can be viewed in isolation without looking at the intrinsic value the platform creates. Steemit is more than just an economic system, what exactly that is, is up for interpretation. It is the first of its kind and the driving force for people to come to the platform is the idea of the economic incentive, but it is not necessarily the reason they stay, especially when seeing the incentives decrease as substantially as they have in 2018. The economy definitely needs amending, but so do many other aspects of this ecosystem
The economy still needs to work or the ship just sinks, at some point literally people can't afford to run the servers (not cheap), etc. It doesn't really matter what the motivations or intrinsic values are. The numbers need to work. (I'm not claiming we are anywhere near the point where servers would be turned off. We're not. But keeping tho ship afloat at a basic level is still always a consideration that trumps others.)
First of all,
Very interesting topic.
I'm glad that you raised the voice about this topic.
By the way,
I want to share some of my ideas & thoughts about this messed up Steem distribution system nowadays.
1. Check how few accounts are holding majority of Steem & SP
1‰(per-mil, not percent) of accounts holding over 80% of whole Steem & SP.
When it comes to ~1%, then app. 94% of whole Steem&SP. (Surprising? I didn't even say how these Steem were distributed at first.. yet)
At this point,
We should accept the reality - Bigger SP makes bigger SP, and Whales has 94% of Steem&SP, simply.
2. 'Delegation' Thingy appeared.. (feat. Bid-bots)
In my assumption, Whales wanted to save their time and collect more coins Easily & efficiently.
Because it would look pretty ugly if Whales upload shit post everyday & upvote each others 10times +@/Day, right?
Then Delegation system appeared.
And Bid-bot system appeared along together.
By these 2 tools, (Delegation & Bid-bot)
1 - Whales can divide their big chunk of SP into several bid-bot accounts, (so they don't have to do ugly things with their original accounts)
2 - Concentrate minnow's SP into their bid-bot accounts for their bigger profit, (poor minnows would think it's win-win strategy when factually it's merely drinking salt water)
3 - Even Sell their vote to minnows for Paid upvoting.
Eg) Some poor minnow who paid 15Steem for 15.0xxSteem might think that it's a good business for him/her, but that is just a hepling bid-bot owner's disguised self voting.
3. Disguised self voting?
Yes. Because by selling vote & receiving same(or more) value of Steem or SBD from minnow - making this scheme looks 'justified' and 'fair' when it's totally Not.
4. Bid-bot is Built-up, Macro program.
Even if someone is going to pay you $10,000 for Shitting on the Street or Public, you can not Shit 24/7.
But Bid-bots Can. This is the difference.
5. So what is the Point?
My point is..
By just 'changing reward ratio for curator' wouldn't be too helpful to fix this serious problem.
Steemit needs Radical Change, not a trick eye.
(You don't use psuedo for cancer, do you?)
-> Kill the bid-bots.
That will be when we can start again.
It's already pretty much 'end-game' phase (since Steem inflation is below 9.5%/year) now, BUT it might giving minnows little more Hope.
Imagine all these whale bid-bots Stop exploiting reward pool!
1 - Finally we will feel some Trickle-down effect,
2 - Can think about Fair distribution by creating & curating quality contents
3 - No more freakin Monkey Post kind of posts spamming all over the trending section. (Newbies feel really hopeless when this happens - Monkey Post getting $$$)
Time is pretty late here and I have to wake up in 3hrs for work.
I wrote this comment just to share my thoughts because it might be helpful to make Steemit change into a better & fair platform for everyone. :)
P.S - I don't mind Whales getting rich.
Just saying that bid-bot is quite tricky & automated Steem&SBD juicer for greedy whales. And it won't be helpful for Steemit platform even in the future.
P.S2 - Dear Planktons, Minnows, Dolphines - Hodl your Steem Hard!! (I am also an Steem Hodler)
HODL will WIN (unless it's EMC2 or Bitconeeeeeeee) ;)
Just my 2 satoshis..✌
@trafalgar
@kevinwong
Let me know what you guys think. Thanks!
First of all, long time no chat! I miss your musk.
Second, many people think you are just a clown here to entertain all of us. But I know your secret. You are actually brilliant! For close to a year you have been jumping up and down pointing to the roof that is on fire. You also pointed out exactly why the roof is on fire. But many have said "We don't need no water let the mothertrucker burn. Burn mothertrucker. Burn." (This joke was intended for the very small niche of 1980s House Music enthusiasts).
Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, because I am not Kevin, I think your solution has a flaw.
I completely disagree with the idea that making downvotes easier and cheaper will help in any way. I think that would be disastrous. We have already seen the vast majority of people use their upvotes to maximize personal, immediate profits. What makes anyone believe people will not use downvotes in the same exact way? Do we trust people to use downvotes to help the platform or to help themselves?
Two years of evidence seems to indicate that if people had cheap downvotes at their disposal, they would use them to increase their individual immediate profits. People will not downvote based on post quality, they will downvote based on the immediate impact on their personal rewards.
In addition, it will bring a level of negativity to the platform that most normal people will seek to avoid.
haha I don't think you need to be brilliant to see that rewarding content indifferent voting behavior (vote selling/farming) 4x more than good curation is a recipe for disaster. It's a surprise we adopted this economic model, and a bigger surprise to be stuck here for over a year.
You're right to be concerned about downvotes. Every one of these measures I've pushed for have trade offs. Ideally we don't want to take more rewards from content creators, we don't want the inequality of any suplinearity, and we don't want the drama, grief and toxicity of downvotes. The idea is to have a minimum combination of these measures that together, is sufficient to close the 4x gap in returns between vote farming and curation.
I'll focus on downvotes. I have a lot of concerns with additional downvote incentives, some of which overlap with yours.
The point you raised about directly using downvotes to benefit oneself is less of a concern if free downvotes are relatively limited. This is because unlike upvotes which can be directed to reward a specific account, downvotes can only be used to deprive an account of potential rewards. So if I have $100 of free daily downvotes, I can't really use them to direct rewards towards me very easily. The most I can do is throw them out indiscriminately on posts I have not voted and thereby indirectly have the posts I have voted to rise ever so slightly in value because I've taken the potential payout of someone else and throw it back into the rewards pool.
Now this doesn't entirely apply if free downvotes have a very high limit. If everyone is given as much free downvotes daily as their daily upvotes (which btw is what most witnesses support but I'm pushing against), then there may be sufficient incentive for larger stakeholders to collude and strategically place their downvotes in a way that significantly pulls rewards platform wide from other posts and pushes them towards posts from which they benefit. Overall this is not an issue with lower limits of free downvotes which I'm espousing.
There are further problems with downvotes. First and foremost, they just suck. Having even minor downvotes thrown at you feels terrible. Not only are they saying they think your content is shit (however right they may be here), they get to remove money that otherwise was directed towards you, making you feel worthless. Of course it gets a lot worse than that, imagine being a relatively small account and having some whale you've randomly ticked off decide to put you in a choke hold for a month. However bad that is, it'll get a lot worse with even with a moderate amount of free downvotes. They greatly contribute to toxicity and escalate negative emotions. I don't think the higher ups really appreciate this as they don't quite use the platform in a way that many of us do, as a social platform.
Compounding this is the fact that unlike upvotes, there are no real checks and balances against free downvotes. Higher curation rewards in upvotes should hopefully become the dominant form of income generation for stakeholders, and thus there's an economic incentive for them to be cast carefully with precision, as your returns are determined by them. There's no similar incentive to keep downvotes precise, proportionate and reasonable. I'm not rewarded more for casting the fairest downvotes on the entire platform. And given the emotional nature of them, they'll be anything but precise, proportionate and reasonable.
For a stakeholder that's using a curation bot or service and making their returns that way, there's little recourse against them if they choose to use downvotes irresponsibly. As they don't post themselves, they're impervious to retaliation and cannot be deterred that way. Remedying an abusive free downvote requires an upvote, which are costly. Free downvotes may serve to keep upvotes in check but the reverse isn't true as there's no such thing as a free upvote.
I honestly have a lot of problems with introducing this change. Nevertheless if it's a moderate amount, I don't see too much direct incentive to use them abusively. There's little to gain directly from abusing them other than if you're a sadist, and I do imagine most of it will be directed with good intentions.
The simple truth is 50% curation just isn't enough to make curation competitive with vote farming so we need downvotes to help, despite all its considerable flaws. Because I strongly believe that however bad they are, the utter failure of a content discovery and rewards platform in which we find ourselves right now is worse. If you have any other ideas with fewer detriments, I'm definitely all ears.
Good to hear from you again my friend
You are definitely right. I would think it is quite simple:
Rewarding a behavior makes that behavior more likely.
The current system seems to reward behavior that is detrimental to the long term growth and health of the platform.
Not making a change is insane.
And yet, people still don't get that "The roof is on fire" and you want to put it out not just to benefit you, but in order to prevent the whole freaking place from burning down (although to be fair, not being on fire would also benefit you personally as I don't think you want to be on fire.)
Here comes the but (Relax. It is a "but" with only one "t").
First, I think you may underestimate the sadist presence and their influence. This is the freaking internet where it has become a “thing” to log in with the sole intention of ruining some stranger’s day.
We need to make it harder for these asshats, not easier.
Second, I am about to say the most taboo thing you can possibly say on this platform. In order to save some people some time, before I make this terribly controversial and insane point, I would like to ask one question.
Is the goal to make a profit (hopefully while consuming and/or producing engaging content) or is it to be a bastion of decentralized unlimited free expression?
If it is the latter, I respect your principles but don’t bother reading the rest of this comment. It derives from he premise that in thousands of years of human history, both goals have never been met at the same time.
Steem the coin is decentralized. I thought steemit.com the social media site was a business. It happens to be a business where anyone has the unlimited freedom to post anything they choose and it will be preserved on the blockchain forever… but it is a business nonetheless.
To me it seems like steemit.com is lot like an open mic at a local bar. Bands, poets and comedians (content producers) are able to take their spot on stage in an attempt to please the crowd.
But every crowded, popular bar has something in common… they have freaking bouncers! Any bar or club that allows the patrons to be the bouncers will definitely fail.
Some may argue that if a club has bad bouncers who abuse their power it will also ultimately fail. But the answer is not to have no bouncers at all… it is to hire the best freaking bouncers! (Like Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse… which is much different from the porn that ends with “head”).
Yes I know that is “centralized”, but that is what businesses are.
This platform is built on an amazing premise. The fact that producers and consumers can both profit from creating and engaging with quality content should result in a booming business. Unfortunately, there are some behaviors that are holding the business back.
If there are behaviors that are hurting the business, the performers and the patrons, hire some bouncers to stop those behaviors. If the bouncers are ineffective or abuse their power, fire them and hire new ones.
Now if there happens to be technology or code that could 100% objectively take the place of bouncers, I am all for it.
Just don't hire any of these...
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with most of these points
It'll be bad. I have no illusions there. It'll likely be worse than you think, as people are even slightly motivated no disperse their downvotes out indiscriminately.
If it were up to me, I'd try and have a method where the downvote is a separate pool and people can delegate negative sp into the accounts of other's downvote pool (not upvote), and in effect, negate their downvotes. I'd have a process where, within reason, the worst abusers will temporarily have their free downvotes negated by steemit negative delegations, and repeat offenders have that period extended etc.
It's not the best system as they can always use different accounts etc. but it could help as doing that takes time for abusers. Meanwhile i'd try to find a better solution to close the 4x gap between 'good' and 'bad' voting behavior.
Without added downvote incentives, curation still only pays half as much as vote farming. Now if you implied that maybe steemit can just employ people to use their stake to only downvote responsibly, it'll be fairly difficult to have enough people to provide good coverage of the entire system.
Realistically things are pretty messy and incompetent all over the place. The advantages of decentralization also comes with it its inefficiencies. I'd be very surprised if whatever changes they end up adopting is as good as the ones i proposed, if any changes are adopted at all.
It can't really get too much worse than this at the macro level, but I'd still prepare for the worst haha
I'm reading this exchange between you and @hanshotfirst. I was under the impression the downvotes would work like upvotes. The power of the downvote would have to recharge after so many uses, but not contribute to upvote power depletion; kept separate.
Since abuse is inevitable, I'd make the downvote power drain faster than upvote power, recharge slower, cost more resource credits; things like that.
Even with downvotes becoming more common, I still see instances of abuse being about as rare as they are today. They will still come with a stigma attached and majority will use them as a last resort and a tool to combat abuse. These flag wars we see get a lot of attention but at the same time, they are rare.
Maybe another way to deter downvote abuse could include the lowering of reputation any time a downvote is handed out. When you guys with your massive SP selfvote, you see a nice increase in reputation. Would you go looney tunes with flags if that number dropped every time you used a flag? That would keep whales in line, as well as many others.
yes, i suggested a 10% separate pool, this does mean that they'll be more or less guaranteed 10% of value being reorganized by downvotes at all times
but i think the witnesses want to go with free downvotes being just as strong as upvotes which i'm against
I think weaker downvotes is good. slower recharge/faster drain is the same as weaker and probably one way of implementing it
If it's not a completely separate pool i think 20-30% free downvotes (3-5x slower regen or faster drain) is probably enough, maybe even a shade lower
The idea is to have something that's enough to deter 'abuse' by knocking it down a bit so that they might as well just upvote good content to compete for the 50% curation. We only need an amount that's sufficient to knock down bad voting behavior to roughly half at any given time to render it no more competitive than playing the game fairly, and under the new system I imagine this sort of behavior would drop sharply, so we don't need a sledgehammer
I agree we should keep downvotes in moderation, please tell the witnesses this. It'll be a disaster if they go 100% free downvotes
Edit: I don't think anyone cares about rep. As it is now it doesn't really affect anything so it won't serve to alter behavior much
Exactly. A deterrent, not a nuclear bomb with a hair trigger.
I'll try to throw the ideas in the mix if I'm around some witnesses on the chain, but I'm not the guy with all the connections. Hopefully they're still reading.
As for rep, you're right, but some are quite proud of their trophies and we did have that one somewhat botched airdrop that was dependent on reputation. I kinda like mine. I polish it up at night, sing to it; you know, normal things.
Was it a botched airdrop? I got 20 steem out of byteballs, felt happy about that. Not sure what airdrops are supposed to be like.
Posted using Partiko Android
I did not realize that there was a movement for free downvotes. If the only two choices are free downvotes or cheaper downvotes, obviously cheaper is better. But either will destroy the motivation to create quality content.
Choice A: Put up a gif of a miner, self vote and hope it sneaks by the downvoting posse.
Choice B: Put 3 - 6 hours of work into a post, hope it gets votes, then hope it sneaks by the downvoting posse.
For anyone with a job and life, choice A wins the vast majority of the time.
Thanks for actually caring about this conversation and engaging.
"I still see instances of abuse being about as rare as they are today."
The only thing preventing downvoting abuse is the fact that every downvote costs someone money. I think it is safe to say that the majority of the active SP on here right now is being used in some sort of "vote farming". Even if it is not a majority, I am positive it is at least a shit ton.
People don't even vote for other people's excellent content because they "only" get 25% of their vote back. Instead they spend their votes on themselves so they can get 100%. If people won't vote others when they at least get 25%, there is no way they are going to downvote which leads to them getting 0.
The fact that downvotes hurt a person's profit is the only reason downvotes are not currently abused. The cost is too high to abuse them.
If we remove that effect on profit, I assure you, people will downvote for purely selfish reasons (either sadistic or monetary).
If downvotes become cheap (or god forbid free) you will see this place become the most negative platform imaginable.
Who is going to bother putting time and effort into a post if the rewards can be dropped to zero by someone or a ring who is acting purely selfishly?
Upvotes are not being used to help the platform. What evidence is there to suggest downvotes will be?
Some of us still vote for other community members because we want to encourage them to continue engaging and creating content. If downvotes become cheap or free, it will be the final nail in the content coffin. No one will risk the time and effort to create quality content if the barrier to downvoting quality content is removed.
I tend to agree. I've always considered excessive paid votes to be a form of downvoting, because paid votes have the same effect as downvoting. Content gets buried, content in earned high slots on hot and trending gets pushed down and out of site. People don't give a crap about pushing others around, paid votes prove that, so therefore, yeah, free flags; probably dangerous.
People talk about this abuse a lot, and I agree, it FEELS true, but is it? I saw @sirknight post about 80% of rewards going to the minnows, dolphins, and plankton. And that just 1-2% were going to vote bots (which is the same as vote farming? Or is that something else?).
If that's true, maybe the roof isn't on fire. Do you have sources for your stats? Note: definitely just curious, not trying to call anyone out. I honestly don't know.
Posted using Partiko Android
Can you break down the math in 50/50 curation for me?
My problem is, it seems like 50% curation doesn't solve anything.
If someone is just using their stake to upvote themselves, they still will, right? Whereas they used to get their $100 vote as 75% author reward and 25% curation, now they'll get it as $50 author reward and $50 curation, but they'll still get it all. Adding previous voters doesn't really change the math. They'll give more of their curation to those folks, but be getting their upvote value.
So... What am I missing?
Posted using Partiko Android