You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Proposing Steem Equality 0.19.0 as the Next Fork

in #steemit7 years ago

I also opposed the higher vote weight change previously but I think this would be very helpful now - particularly as the amount of time I have becomes more limited this will allow me to use up my voting power more efficiently.

Sort:  

That was my first big post talking about prospect theory and how rescuing 40 to 5 would be like a super vote for minnows and great for steem. Ah the memories.

Increase Each Vote's Impact
We want to change the voting power reserve rate to allow voters to spend more of their voting power in a single vote. You will be able to concentrate your influence with fewer votes while still being able to spread it out if you choose. Currently, you are limited to using 1/200th of your remaining voting power in a single vote. We want to increase this somewhere between 4-10x per vote.

This is a bad idea. A lot more stake will end up being used by users to vote for themselves. Engagement/curation will be discouraged and votes will be more concentrated. We already have enough groups upvoting each other, this is going to make it even worse.
Is there any statistics on what the self-voting percentage is? If not I suggest we calculate it before implementing any new feature. I can guarantee that increasing the power of each vote will increase self-voting a lot in term of the stake used to self-vote.
I also don't like the idea that users who are not active would be able to use all their power without much involvement in the platform. Active users should be able to benefit from users who are inactive and do not use their voting power.

It's not a bad idea. There is much voting power unused by human curators while bots are fully utilizing it. Increasing each vote's impact will reduce the gap between human and bots. If one is doing both manual and bot curation, one may decrease a proportion of bot curation for keeping manual curation power (just my 2 cents)

Active users have no disadvantages compared to bots, but that's not even the problem.
The whole point of steem is to reward others with your voting power, if you make it easier for users to upvote themselves the platform loses value.
I was the first one to say that the curve was a non issue for self voting and that it doesn't prevent self-voting. However this feature to give a single vote more power will definetely encourage self-voting, the fact that it takes a lot of post to use your power is the best protection against self voting.
If you have a blockchain where everyone upvote themselves it becomes worthless and that's what a lot of people will do if this new change is implemented.

I generally agree with you, but have some different thoughts. To explain, I need to refine two points of your statement "the whole point of steem is to reward others with your voting power".

  • "To reward" is not a perfect term in accuracy. Actually, it is reallocation of public resource (like which project we should support with tax money) via collaborative decision making. But reward can be correct in broader sense IMO.
  • "Reward others" is not correct. The correct description should be "reward contents", not people.

So, in my words, "the point of Steem is to spend community money on contents, which are perceived to potentially generate values for the community, via collaborative decision making process with voting power."

Back to self voting, I think self-voting can be cast if an author evaluates his/her content worth to be rewarded. There is no reason to exclude the author from the evaluation process, since he/she is also a stakeholder of Steem.

However, the problem of superlinearity is when one has very big voting power, which is greater than average upvotes(in VESTS) of all other posts. In this case, the self-voter can earn more than his/her stake shares. Smart bots also follow this large voter while other minnows feel disappointed. Consequently, collaborative decision making process is hindered.

In the linear system, everyone's vote will be treated in equal weights, regardless of being whale or minnow, and this will facilitate collaborative decision making process. There can be some more self upvoters, but I think it is okay if they think their posts are worth to get it. Surely, others can downvote if they think the posts are overvalued.

The key for Steem is collaboration. Equality in vote and weakened bots influence are good move IMHO.

If there is a proposal to allow people to use all their power in a single vote, would you be in favor ? If not why?

I am for it, but not in a "single vote" form. I'd rather want to see "point-based" vote, as suggested in https://steemit.com/brainstrom/@clayop/brainstroming-new-design-for-voting-power

I'm sorry to say but if you are for it ( in whatever form) then you don't understand the implication . If people can use full power in 1 single vote they will write one post per day and give all the money to themselves.
The fact that currently users need to upvote 200 post to use their full power is what protects the whole system against self-voting.

You called it!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.12
JST 0.033
BTC 64143.01
ETH 3154.83
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.86