RE: Whales - Can the community buy out a portion of your influence?
(Disclaimer: Everything said below is only my personal opinion)
I support elimination of curation rewards idea - curation rewards add too much of complexity that outweighs all the benefits they provide.
In regard of 250 MV voting threshold, I think it needs some further development - in current form it doesn't solve original problem (influence doesn't scale well with the number of users), and it also adds a lot of complexity (that I see as another big issue right now), e.g. now you need to counterbalance whales' initiatives to not make them to split their accounts into multiple 250MV pieces and regain their influence back, giving them some passive income might be not enough or giving too much can counteract the decentralization of the stake.
"canceling out the downvotes" - it would be nice to enable this for all users, or even better - turn all upvotes or dowvotes into analogy of comments that would be votable too, so upvotes or downvotes on them would affect their strength.
Hi @val-a, thanks for your reply!
One idea that was proposed regarding this was to have the threshold be set at a dollar amount instead of in vests. It would allow the solution to scale, assuming that a large increase of users would be correlated with an increase in the price of STEEM.
I agree that the complexity part is a big deterrent. I don't know if there really is a much simpler way to accomplish the goal of reducing the influence of the largest stake holders though, that is still fair to them, without some level of complexity along these lines.
Decreasing the threshold and set it in dollars can make counterbalancing the initiatives to be much harder.
Basically this proposal splits SP into two different kinds of assets with different initiatives to hold - this adds complexity and changes economics.
I think we need to wait until guilds and votes delegation are implemented and see if this solves the problem, if not this proposal can be revisited.
I agree. Sounds good.
There are two separate proposals that have been discussed too (besides the buying out of whale SP)
I think both of those ideas would be good to consider, and could be done before the delegation and guild changes.
I would support both.
Even I am a newbie with no complete understanding i thing that might be a good idea too @val-a @timcliff - just matters we all work together for the sake of platform success
Hi @val-a, we spoke a month ago about a Steem Power delegation/rental deal, and I'd like to move forward with it if you're interested. I'm in the market for about 200,000 SP, possibly more. Let me know if you want to discuss this - you can email me at philip.brown (at) gatech (dot) edu.
What delegation and guilds changes are you refering to?
https://steemit.com/steem/@timcliff/whales-can-the-community-buy-out-a-portion-of-your-influence#@val-a/re-timcliff-re-val-a-re-timcliff-whales-can-the-community-buy-out-a-portion-of-your-influence-20170214t181112143z
Not sure what I am supposed to be reading via this thread? I think guilds are not scalable and too complexe for the average joe, and so they are a waste of time. And voting delegation, is this a new feature or?
Discussed on Steemit Chat.
Note sure what to expect yet as far as guilds. We'll have to wait and see.
Vote delegation is a proposed change in the next HF (GitHub Issue 818).
I worry this would become quite complex
This complexity can be handled on UI side. Only downvoting procedure may slightly change as well as reputation calc algorithm.