Are You Seeing the Truth? What Is Your Vision of Steem?

3년 전

truth-1123020_960_720.jpg

Moment of truth.

It’s an event that happens to us all the time. We learn. We change our minds. Read and write. That’s how the knowledge base in our brains get modified over time. Thing is, it's most likely that not all truths in our minds are true. There may be false truths as well.

So now, have you ever get so upset in a matter so much because you know you are very likely correct, but the knuckleheads in front of you just don’t want to learn the truth and act upon newfound knowledge? I'm sure many have gone through such an experience before.

I have in recent times. It's quite a rare event since I'm generally chilled to the max. Part of life I guess. It's funny because I've never even been to the local council here to lodge complaints before. But here I am, doing it on Steem. I guess that's because we have highly responsible witnesses working hard to improve Steem all the time and making sure things are still working.

The economy is not working out, guys.

You might have seen my ramblings about Steem's dysfunctional economic design recently here, here, and here.

And why am I feeling like I should push this through? I can already demonstrate the problem myself if I want to. Everybody also knows they can do it as well. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a full-swing phenomenon on Steem. Just sell 100% of our votes or use it only fully on ourselves. This is the property of linear economics and cheapified curation.

I'm beginning to think the huge monthly salary top witnesses are getting is working against the best interest of the platform. None of these guys are feeling the urgency to fix the damn pothole everybody has been complaining about. It's like consultancy. Propose half solutions and prolong the problem.

consultingdemotivator.jpeg
Image source

But I understand that some of us may all just be talking past each other most of the time. Not saying that I'm right, but I might be absolutely right lol. I'll attempt to elaborate as best I can. If we're in the same scope of discussion, then perhaps we can begin discussing this matter clearly. There's not much to discuss here though. Even my mum is saying "why so stupid"? Decide for yourself if it's agreeable.

Guiding principles in economic design.

  1. We can expect many different kinds of voters in a massive social network.
  2. The lowest common denominator activity is self-voting / vote-trading (no work).
  3. The second lowest common denominator activity is curation (smallest unit of work imaginable).
  4. (2) is easily 6-10x more profitable than (3). Zero work for most returns.
  5. Because (4), the problem should be fixed immediately. It's creating negative feedback loops in the system, much more than positive feedback loops. Balance it out.

Proposed changes.

(What we think is the cheapest move Steem can make to shift the economic equilibrium sufficiently enough to balance out the effects of voting)

  • Capped modest superlinear (ie modest superlinear n~1.3 in lower-end, linear in higher-end)
  • ~50% curation rewards.
  • Slightly increased downvote incentives.

Expected benefits of proposed economic equilibrium.

  • Less spam.
  • Less pressure on scalability progress.
  • Bigger curation economy.
  • Decent content.
  • Happier and better users.

MOSHED-2018-5-31-4-29-26.jpg
(How about making corruption somewhat irrelevant on Steem with the right economic designs? Image source)

Bidbots and vote trading practices are cancerous under Steem's economy today.

I don't really have a problem with anyone exchanging votes, selling SP delegations, buying votes, or even operating bidbots. That's just the best move now, although it's at the expense of the network's long-term health. More and more users will start doing it as time goes on as behaviours converge into the expected economic equilibrium, which is rampant self-voting / vote trading. Really can't blame anyone at all. Anyone participating in these activities will more likely stop contributing to such corruption naturally when the right economic incentives are in place.

However, I have a problem if top witnesses defend the existence of vote trading markets and is not working to make such markets irrelevant. To be frank, I think it's intellectual dishonesty to continue doing so. They're not helping the platform at all. Vote trading is by definition blind and doesn't involve any work no matter how you reason it out. They're exactly the greedy and greasy middleman stuff that blockchains aspired to get rid of in design.

It's easy to know about this truth once you relate it with your observations and experience in the real world. Vote trading is ultimately a practice that corrupts organisations and is never a good idea to have it as the dominating force. Now I remember asking if vote trading is a corrupt practice last year, but I guess I was being too open-minded about it, reserving some healthy skepticism for my own convictions.

But in the end, 2 plus 2 is not equals 5. The mathematics and behavioural-economics of vote trading markets can never work out in favour of the greater good of any social platform. Or anywhere else really. Giving yourself free money is not work and such behaviour cannot be dominating the economy. Sure, the behaviour will always exist, even I do it myself sometimes. Who doesn't like easy money? But overall, we need to keep it in balance in-design. Currently, Steem's economy is highly imbalanced.

Bidbots will never go away. But they're cancerous under Steem's current economic reality, for reasons stated above. This is why we need to get curation behaviours rewarded at least on par with vote trading behaviours for the good of the platform.

enlogar-3033957_960_720.jpg
(A witness spotted in the wild Tai Chi'ing away. Image source)

But, but, but.. we now have bidbots with whitelists and blacklists and rainbowlists and we just need to get more people self-voting and bidbotting on high quality contributions.

While I'd agree that bidbotting on great content / contributions is a lesser evil, it still doesn't escape the fact that vote trading is inherently blind and is an activity that doesn't involve any work.

Vote sellers get money for doing nothing, which is the same as self-voting. Vote buyers pay money to get votes for themselves. Vote brokers facilitate the transaction between buyers and sellers while taking an unnecessarily high middleman cut from Steem. None of the economic agents are doing any favour for Steem as a social content platform for doing the least work at most expense.

So if anyone's defending the vote trading market by saying there's work involved in updating whitelists, blacklists, or whateverlists, I'd say they're just babbling with no substance, especially when the premise remains the same: in linear economics, vote trading is basically self-voting, which is again, by definition content blind and involves zero work. I can't say this enough.

Also like any oracles, bidbot gatekeepers and operators are the writers of their own whateverlists. They can also just as likely produce their whateverlists for whatever else, like green-lighting their own friends, sock-puppets, mistresses, cats, dogs, and such while similarly able to strike off anyone else regardless whether or not they're productive agents on Steem.

"They will keep defending it as long as they are raking in the cash. The whole altruism pretense is silly."
by a very dedicated Steem witness and curator.

Yes, this also goes to bidbot operators that are also policing abuse, spam, and the likes. I know these things happen all the time, and are very important work. It's part of curation in some indirect way. But it remains that we're operating in an economy that's fuelled by the very activity that should've been avoided in the first place. It's almost the equivalent of the police department paying abusers to be abusers just so everyone gets to keep their fake jobs being busy and prosper. There may be good intentions, but the premise is entirely false under Steem's current economic reality.

Don't get me wrong, most vote traders may have Steem's best interest in mind, but if any witnesses are vote traders themselves, I'd most likely not going to treat them seriously unless they really recognise the problem but is doing it anyway just because it's the best move. Just please don't defend the practice simply because you're earning from it. It should have no place being the dominating practice in any networks, and it should be on top of witnesses' minds that economic reforms ought to take place because in my opinion, it's the most pressing problem on Steem now that doesn't require years of research and development to get anything done.

Honestly, it's getting harder for me to take most of the top witnesses seriously now if they can't see this problem in plain sight and acknowledge the truth. Who doesn't like easy money to keep their position? Everybody likes it and will likely defend their privilege in accessing easy money until the end of time.

Focus on designing the right economic incentives where we can only hope that the path of least of resistance everyone takes go to at least some small amount of work in order to fuel positive feedback loops. And that will be based on curation, not vote trading practices that create negative feedback loops.

5656700141_2b2ffccd6f_b.jpg
(More witnesses spotted in the wild doing the Tai Chi. Image source)

But, but, but.. we can make it more efficient to swat out those who are abusing self-voting and bidbot votes.

Another brickwall of knuckleheadedness lol. I'd agree on a separate downvote pool and increased downvote incentives to keep behaviours in check. But as already reasoned out in previous posts and replies repeating the same thing over and over again by hundreds of different people, we are just fighting against an economy that incentivices counter-productive behaviours to a great degree, so that standalone solution itself is very likely insufficient.

One of the big reasons is that downvotes on spammy vote trading activities end up diverting the rewards pool back to other spammy vote trading activities elsewhere, anyway. What's ironic about this situation is that our massive flagging activites, along with accounts creatively distributing themselves to more sock puppets and more useless posts will add even more spam on the network.

Again, this all falls apart only because of the dysfunctional economic equilibrium we're in right now, which can very likely be fixed.

Downvotes should only be seen as a backup plan. The only truly effective way to solve the problems we have right now is to design an economy that will have a better chance of preventing the activities and behaviours that we'd (rather not) want to downvote.

man-dressed-in-white-praticing-tai-chi-on-beasch.jpg
(A witness doing the Tai Chi by the beach. Image source)

But, but, but.. new and low-powered users will feel left out if they can't effectively self-vote.

So sell them some votes? I don't know what to say about this. If only for the purpose of advertising, sure. But now it's not advertising. It's something like a money-printing machine. What we're proposing here will effectively shrink the profitability of vote buyers / sellers / intermediaries. If vote buyers are paying much more with a higher-risk of not profiting from the action, then it's more like advertising, which means persistent users of this nature are the users that we'd actually want more than the rest.

Again, self-voting and vote trading are ultimately the same activity that's content blind and involves no work at all, even if said new users are self-voting or bidbotting on objectively great content or contributions all the time.

If users have been consistently curating and contributing to the network, they will more likely get voted up when there are better curation economies going on in the network. To retain users (the kind we'd want anyway), they would need to feel that it's more or less working fairly. Let me explain what fair here means. It simply means that curation rewards are on par with vote trading rewards, if not better. If the economy's fair and has a decent amount of curation, then users will more likely stay whether or not they're actually getting curated.

We can only hope to implement a massive, but functional Steem economy when it can at least reward work as much as no-work. Yes, we're working with the absolute minimum requirement by equating a simple act of curation as a smallest unit of work on the platform. Today, Steem is rewarding no-work much more than work. So it's not Proof-of-Brain enough.

I'd entirely agree that squeezing out the floor sucks for the smaller players as they lose some of that gamification element to dust-vote themselves under the proposed changes. But that's only one small part of gamification. There are other kinds of gamification, like persisting and perhaps getting recognised later by the community for their great contributions? Ever played a difficult game and succeeding?

But of course, we wouldn't want to make life punishingly difficult for new users and low SP users alike as with the case of n2 rewards. And as explained, purely linear economics inherently works against the favour of the platform even though it'd attract plenty of players. This is why many of us have been suggesting somewhere in-between linear (n) and superlinear (n2), which we could term as capped modest superlinear, for example, n1.337, or even n1.618 which is based on the golden ratio - with the top-ends maintaining linearity.

4969196771_f296e59326_b.jpg
(Big butts. Image source)

But, but, but.. the rich will only get richer.

One common reservation about the modest superlinear and ~50% curation rewards proposal is that it provides highly-staked accounts more influence, while also making the rich richer. I seriously have no idea why this is a problem. It's very likely the rich will get richer anyway, especially if they simply diversify their wealth. Great wealth and influence is not the problem. The problem is the alignment of economic incentives.

Plus, if the argument is the rich will only get richer.. what about Steem's current economy that is making the laziest workers richer than the hardworkers? Don't even need to any hard data and statistics for this. Just use the platform and look around yourself.

Soon 90% of stakeholders will be doing nothing but just sell their votes and self-vote to oblivion with spammy stuff. It will become highly unsustainable. 90% is actually not so far from our current situation now with an estimated 50-70% of total Steem Power being sold and self-voted. It will only get worse.

The point here, again, is to have economic incentives moving away from vote trading activities and into curation activities, so that even the biggest stakeholders on the network will effectively have more of their voting power going to curation activities (either by manual curating, auto-curating, and delegating SP to curation groups and such) compared to what we have today.

However, I understand that extreme wealth disparity could very well be somewhat destructive in any society, although I still think it's not the greatest problem, especially with the right economic incentives in place, one that distributes wealth all around.

In any case, capped superlinear is a good idea. Superlinear rewards in the lower-end, and linear reward in the higher-end. What we really want here is ~80% of the benefits in superlinear for ~20% of the cost, hence somewhere between n and n2 with a linear top-end. Best bang for the buck.

gorilla-1421897_960_720.jpg
(Sleeping buttnaked. Image source)

But, but, but.. maybe we just need more layers of value-adding services other than vote-trading services.

Of course we can use more value-adding services like @dlive, @dtube, @utopian-io, @steemhunt, @steemmonsters and such. These services may pan out well. But my guess is that's only more likely under the right circumstances. It's just very likely not going to add much to Steem at the moment. The path of least work and most money is still in self-voting and vote trading, which again, creates negative feedback loops for Steem and generally making the UX terrible for users of the platform as well.

But, but, but.. non-linear is not business-friendly.

I personally think the defence that investors and businesses should participate heavily in self-voting and voting trading is, sorry to say, moronic. No good investments work that way. It's literally devaluing their stakes because it's feeding into a negative feedback loop. But I understand that it's the best move now.

However, if you just think one step ahead, solving Steem's economic problem as per our proposal will likely provide more sustainable returns and make the platform a better place for everyone, especially investors.

But, but, but.. we should lead by example then.

"As I've argued before, this is not a problem of individual misbehavior or bad culture or inability to discover good content or bad ui etc. We've just got a flawed economic system that provides the very action we don't want with the highest rewards."
by @trafalgar

But, but, but.. ok chill. Enough has been said about the subject.

Why are we talking past each other most of the time anyway?

I had a realisation yesterday. Discussions can only be effective when participants are able to scope out their thoughts and work in the same wavelength, so to speak. I feel like we are sometimes irrational in discussions because there are emotions involved in the mix. I suspect that it might have to do with our sense of ethics when we're discussing stuff: Kantianism vs utilitarinism / consequentialism.

Anyway, going through this process of complaining recently has also made me experienced firsthand discussions on blockchain protocol changes. Oh boy, such discussions can hardly scale beyond the size of a telephone booth, and achieving consensus in a decentralised network is really not easy at all. The struggle is real. It's a long and tedious process to even get anything moving forward, even agreeing on something as simple as 2 + 2 is not equals 5 (like Steem's economic problem, honestly).

Makes me wanna bang my head on the wall. Because we also get muddled in-between objective and subjective thinking all the time. It's almost like thinking either in System 1 or System 2, fluctuating between different topics while communicating, while more often than not, completely missing the point of the discussion in the end. Even then, our discussions usually get lost in the wind with no machines around trying to make sense of it all. Repeat over and over again. It's a huge time-sink. Will the real semantic web please stand up?

Thank Ohad that the technology might be arriving soon. I hope it works. It'll be a shame to stay frozen and paralysed on this simple matter though. But I digress.

Please take our proposal seriously.

I know it might not be fair for me to say this, but top witnesses literally only have one job other than maintaining witness nodes: Make Steem Better. But it seems like Steem has been in the ICU ward for a while now and nobody's attending the emergency.

Don't mind if I repeat here.

Guiding principles in economic design.

  1. We can expect many different kinds of voters in a massive social network.
  2. The lowest common denominator activity is self-voting / vote-trading (no work).
  3. The second lowest common denominator activity is curation (smallest unit of work imaginable).
  4. (2) is easily 6-10x more profitable than (3). Zero work for most returns.
  5. Because (4), the problem should be fixed immediately. It's creating negative feedback loops in the system, much more than positive feedback loops. Balance it out.

Proposed changes.

(What we think is the cheapest move Steem can make to shift the economic equilibrium sufficiently enough to balance out the effects of voting)

  • Capped modest superlinear (ie modest superlinear n~1.3 in lower-end, linear in higher-end)
  • ~50% curation rewards.
  • Slightly increased downvote incentives.

Expected benefits of proposed economic equilibrium.

  • Less spam.
  • Less pressure on scalability progress.
  • Bigger curation economy.
  • Decent content.
  • Happier and better users.
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

I agree, these changes should be tried to improve things:

  • Capped modest superlinear (ie modest superlinear n~1.3 in lower-end, linear in higher-end)
  • ~50% curation rewards.
  • Slightly increased downvote incentives.

I also remember how frustrated people were when their vote was worth nothing while seeing $10,000 posts on trending. Steemit, inc "fixed" that problem giving even small accounts more influence (in monetary terms) but that caused another problem which incentivizes wealth extraction over wealth creation.

Great wealth and influence is not the problem. The problem is the alignment of economic incentives.

Many, unfortunately, disagree. When they are desperate, they see wealth (and all who have it) as their problem, as the thing holding them back. They get angry about wealth and (paradoxically) the one thing they need to enjoy greater well-being (money and resources) becomes the object of their hatred which (subconsciously) they fight against.

That said, an improved economic system that is better than linear but not as crazy as before will help, I think. I also like creating more value for those who find great content through curation.

So here, to me, is the real problem.

Who is responsible for making these suggested code changes?

  1. Is it Steemit, inc core developers since this is core blockchain stuff that may take quite some time to do correctly? If so, should they suspend all work on appbase, hivemind, SMTs, HF20, and other projects to make these changes first? Are we okay with that as a community, even if it takes a couple months?

  2. Is it the Witnesses? Other than a few, the witnesses are not directly contributing much code to the core STEEM repo. Should they be hiring developers to get up to speed and force changes through? Should the STEEM repo be forked over this and we run our own version that has been modified? Should we resist pushing out any new changes (such as HF20) until these changes are done also?

  3. Is it the community? Should community developers learn the STEEM blockchain, make the code changes requested, create pull requests, and pressure the witnesses to create a new Hard Fork (HF 19.5 ?) to push them through? If so, who pays them to do this since we have no worker proposal system (my vote would be for the witnesses and Steemit, inc to pay them directly).

Ultimately it comes down to responsibilities. Who takes responsibility for making these changes and who takes responsibility for any unintended consequences that arise from them? Could Steemit, inc get sued someday for changing the economics here that benefit one group over another? This is uncharted territory, and I think the problem is we're "kind of" acting like a DAC with witnesses being voted in, but we're still working with centralized code development in a single company, Steemit, inc. With the chain so young, I'm not sure throwing more developers at it would help right now, so I'm not knocking on Steemit, inc for the work they are doing now (it is the most used blockchain on the planet, so let's not get our pitchforks and torches out just yet).

I am saying people are pissed, and we have systemic economic problems which need to be addressed. We also have an education problem (IMO) where investors and stake holders need to think in terms of long-term rational self-interest and not short-term irrational value extraction. No economic system is perfect and there will be new forms of abuse in the future, I guarantee it. The only thing that ever works when it comes to protecting a collaborative commons like the STEEM rewards pool is for people to come together and enforce agreements about how much they will take and how much they will leave for everyone else. That is the cultural issue that needs to be addressed right along with the technical code changes needed to improve the economic incentives.

The code drives all of these changes we want to see.

Let's get some Github PRs written to get this changed. Until we do, we'll be talking about this next year also. In order to make that happen, let's figure out who is responsible for those code changes.

What do you think, @kevinwong?

·

I think the changes required to take place in the code is quite trivial and not rocket science (not remotely near SMTs).

The only part of the proposal which may have a problem might be the capped modest superlinear curve since we’ve only been using n1 vs n2 and nothing in between. Pretty sure some top witnesses could handle this, if not Steemit devs. Doesn’t have to be capped modest superlinear rewards per se, just as long as it captures the spirit of what we’re trying to do with the proposal here (including the other parts of the proposal)

As for the education and rational thinking stuff, I wouldn’t worry too much about it. When incentives are aligned as proposed, we can expect the majority of user activities to start adding to the network. Now it’s the other way around. Things will likely change for the better of the platform when selfvoting / vote trading becomes only at most about 2x more than curation, instead of 6-10x currently.

As for whose responsibility, I’ve been spending lots of hours just thinking and exploring the topic through writing. Probably already more than 72 hours in total focused on the subject and I’ve lost my sleep for the past couple of days.

I’m not getting paid like a top witness to really get this rolling and be active in the discussion and implementation. Is anyone at least putting 9 hours a day like any conventional job would? I guess no. It’s unconventional, and not many have the discipline and would like to have to take things easier. I’m like that, which is why I’m not even planning to run for witness until I can get a good dev partners with me and something decent organised myself and attend to issues like this.

In the end, top witnesses are the block producers. No one else can do anything really. I hope someone steps up and maybe even get Steemit’s aid. I’ve already done my part here. I can keep writing and complaining though, but it's tiring tbh lol. If not many top witnesses think it's dysfunctional and something needs to be done asap, then I'd probably take a hint and have my own conclusions about dpos and the people we have in place.

·
·

Shoot! Sorry, I missed your reply as I was mostly disconnected this weekend and have been working crazy hours lately.

Pretty sure some top witnesses could handle this

Unfortunately we don't have many blockchain developers as witnesses.

if not Steemit devs

As I mentioned above, are we okay with them postponing other things many are already frustrated with concerning delay to release?

And yes, 2x sounds much better than 6-10x.

As for whose responsibility

What did you end up concluding? Is it the block producers' responsibility to implement code changes? It might be, but that might also be like saying it's the bitcoin miner's responsibility to implement bitcoin code changes.

Complaining is certainly tiring which is why I don't recommend it much. :) Voicing real concerns is really important, for sure, but I was always taught when we have problem, we should also bring some possible solutions to the table as well. I think one of the main problems is unclear responsibilities. I tried to outline 3 possibilities. Based on your reply, it sounds like #2 is the way to go? If so, we should all be voting in more developers as witnesses and/or witnesses who hire developers. Do you think that would help us move things forward more quickly so as not to pull Steemit, inc off what they are already working on?

·
·
·

Thanks for getting back @lukestokes. Hmm i'm still not clear on what BPs should do in a DPOS setting. My perception is that top witnesses / BPs are paid positions for improving the DPOS platform, quite unlike Bitcoin's piecemeal rewards for miners.

One of the biggest reasons why I've directed this to the top witnesses is so more could get into this solution and get it done, either by persuading Steemit Inc to do so as part of immediate development, or work together with the other witnesses to do the dev work instead.

But so far from your response and smooth, it'd seem that my perception is not based on what the scenario actually is. So I guess the only move is the former: for top witnesses to recognise the urgency of this situation and in turn, persuade Steemit Inc that a solution ought to be implemented as soon as possible.

It shouldn't escape the top witnesses that the rewards algorithm is currently working against Steem as an incentivised public content platform since it's clear that the curation economy is worth 7-10x less than the vote trading / self-voting economy.

Even 50% curation and slightly increased downvote incentives without that "modest superlinear" rewards curve would be a good start.

·
·
·
·

To be clear, does “as soon as possible” mean they should stop other work they are doing that they have already committed to? I’ve tried to make this really clear but I don’t think I’m clearly understanding your answer. Focusing on these changes prior to HF20, Appbase, Hivemind, or SMTs may be a tough sell. Is that what you’re expecting Steem witnesses to demand from Steemit? I laid out scenarios where we could reject hard forks if they didn’t include the changes mentioned here. Is that what you’re asking?

I agree with that more witnesses should either engage directly with development or hire developers if they have the funds to do so. I think we need to vote for more more technical witness with real programming (and ideally blockchain) experience.

·
·
·
·
·

I think it's the easiest move to benefit steem in the short-mid term and it could improve the web rankings of Steem-based apps during this period when attention is valuable in the cryptospace. It looks like the other features are taking a long time to develop and rightfully so.

If the top witnesses don't think trying to gain a short-med edge with this approach is important, then I guess we'll just wait it out. It'll likely still remain to be an issue even with SMTs, etc tbh. IMHO, SMTs will likely do better from the get-go when web rankings for Steem based apps are within the top 500 range, along with a higher marketcap. Now Steemit is slipping away in #1700 ranking and I think it's alarming, and puts SMTs in a more dis-favourable position in getting the big push it needs when it starts.

The economy is currently sidelining entire activities on Steem that are based on curation over non-curation. Can't please everyone, but at least keep the ones that are invested in the long-term and give them better econs in the interim so that even the non-author/contributor types can start posting less "spam" and actually start curating/engaging accounts and communities of their liking, or delegate to those that do.

Hmm what I'm asking is if our reasoning (and urgency) here is agreeable, then the top witnesses should act on it. If not then we'll just chill and wait it out haha.. Not sure if I managed to persuade you, but if you also begin to think the same then maybe you can start influencing the rest :)

(note: I think this is a problem that can be worked on in parallel with SMTs and the other features. Don't have to stop everything just to attend to the task)

·
·
·
·
·

To add:-

  • If we go ahead with the plan of changing the econs, need to establish ways to measure improvements / degradations.
  • If outcome over X period of time is not satisfactory, we can revert back to current settings.
  • My guess is that we'll see sentiment reflected in price. When the econs don't sideline those that invest in the long-term, they are more likely to be confident about the coin.
·
·
·
·
·
·

At a conference at the moment, but I’m thinking about some possible solutions: https://twitter.com/lukestokes/status/1004769842413490176?s=21

I’ll elaborate on this when I return home.

·
·

quite trivial and not rocket science

In fact, Steemit has told us that mild superlinear rewards (via a true 'curve') are actually very difficult to implement. So maybe non-developers shouldn't be making statements about what is or is not trivial?

That is one reason why I support the simpler (if somewhat imperfect) measure of deducting some voting power from each comment (or post). It amounts to a mild 'superlinear' (in practice even if not in strict mathematical terms) as the effect of the one-time deduction is burned off (twice the vote power would always produce more than twice the rewards, with the effect approaching linear at high rewards).

·
·
·

That’s a great idea, I was thinking the same thing 100 pct curation with writer as first voter(with slider) but it hits your voting power to post.

·
·
·

So maybe non-developers shouldn't be making statements about what is or is not trivial?

Yup, hence "I think" since I'm not familiar with the practicalities in code. Or perhaps multiple linear approximations hugging the mild superlinear curve could do the trick. Not very professional though but I think it'll serve the purpose.

That is one reason why I support the simpler (if somewhat imperfect) measure of deducting some voting power from each comment (or post). It amounts to a mild 'superlinear' (in practice even if not in strict mathematical terms) as the effect of the one-time deduction is burned off (twice the vote power would always produce more than twice the rewards, with the effect approaching linear at high rewards).

Seems like an equivalent of a simple increase in the floor-threshold, haven't thought about this through that well.

·
·
·
·

multiple linear approximations hugging the mild superlinear curve could do the trick

There may still be implementation complexities there. For example, how to calculate large votes that cross many transition points without introducing more calculation overhead (votes and their associated payouts are the most frequent transaction on the network by far so their computational cost is important), or creating opportunities for gaming by placing specific calculated votes around the transition points. I don't know there are, but I do know that any code going on a blockchain needs to be carefully analyzed first because those trying to exploit it will often do so. I'm mostly guessing but factually Steemit and its devs (unquestionably the most experience and familiar with the code) have definitely said that tinkering with the curves is NOT trivial.

Seems like an equivalent of a simple increase in the floor-threshold, haven't thought about this through that well

Slightly different (but IMO the difference is quite important) because of what happens when the threshold is reached. With a deduction it remains non-linear on the low end. For example, if the threshold is 0.10 and you can vote up to 0.11 with your own (or delegated, bot vote power, etc.) then you get full linear value of your vote. With a deduction of 0.10 you get only 10% of linear value on your vote (a vote of $0.20 gets 50% value, $1 gets 90% value, $10 gets 99%, etc. so linearity is approached on larger per-comment payouts, which seems to be what most advocates of 'mild superlinear' want).

Still, just increasing the threshold would help somewhat with spam (and processing overhead of small payouts) and wouldn't be bad either.

(BTW, comments and posts are equivalent in the code, I use the word 'comment' above and probably elsewhere when referring to both.)

·
·
·
·
·

yup i think i understand your suggestion now regarding the roundabout way of simulating modest superlinear, traf has also said the same it seems. as for transition points in the case of multiple linear approximations, probably won't be as great of an exploit considering what's happening at Steem's current state..

·
·

The n^x could be a witness variable like interest.

·

Much thanks for responding @lukestokes. A bit tied down at the moment, so will respond later. Upvoted for visibility!

·

You bring up an important point about who is responsible for really focusing on any changes made but also I think it is questionable what percentage of Steemians would really want to have these changes put in place. There are a handful of people with decent power levels that might want this because they won't lose out as much as people with lower power levels but if we had some vote where everyone with at least 500 SP and a reputation over 50 were able to have a vote on this the mass majority of people would likely rather stay where we are right now.

Personally I feel like 50% curation rewards won't make "good" content surface. It will be what we saw before where a small handful of people who create cookie cutter content will just be put on auto voters by large stake holders. They just create content mills where they just pump out circle jerk stuff or paraphrase CoinDesk articles....etc. A lot of that is going on now as well but it seemed way worse over a year ago and it drove people away.

Making it so someone can't power up sizable amounts of money and effect their vote value is a death sentence for this place. It already becomes questionable to power up somewhat large amounts here mainly because it doesn't give you enough pull on the reward pool compared to the people who benefited from the unfair initial distribution.

If people have to power up $100,000 to really start to see any difference and people powering up $10,000 end up with a $0.02 vote this place will really go down the drain because there won't be as much demand to buy STEEM and power up. It will never seem to be worth it unless someone is already Bitty Rich.

STEEM has almost been there for 2 years now. The Beta MAX and the SEGA Saturn were almost there as well which is what worries me.

·
·

the mass majority of people would likely rather stay where we are right now.

Do you have some data to support that? I'd really like to see it. I think STEEM could use a polling system which takes into account stake weighted vote, reputation, engagement, etc. Right now, all of that is wrapped up into one single thing: Who do we support as a witness? It may be more helpful for individual stake holders to voice their views on various topics and then let the witnesses communicate the steps they are taking to meet those concerns.

I do have concerns about increasing the curation to 50% but I also have concerns about the systemic risk related to keeping things the way they are. Many people aren't aware of how much self voting and wealth extraction is taking place which, if left unchecked, could destroy this whole platform as it has done with other "post for pay" social media sites. This is really important stuff to get right, and if we just pretend things aren't all that bad, we might be inviting failure.

Anyone can power up sizeable amounts of money. They are called investors. Anyone is free to be an investors who has the money, but not anyone is free to extract more value than they put in (unless the economics are broken and other stake holders don't downvote over rewards disagreement to protect the collaborative commons).

the unfair initial distribution.

I agree, this is a continued systemic problem and so far, I have not heard of any solutions other than what might be possible with SMT's and SMT Oracles.

I agree, if the vote strength doesn't equate to seeing an actual vote difference, then people won't be very excited about participating in this attention economy. That's one of the things I liked most about a linear rewards curve as it actually made people realize how much their vote matters. At the same time, it skewed the incentives (as the original white paper warned it would) which caused other problems. I hope we can find a balance somewhere in between.

·
·
·

I don't necessarily have any hard data to display but human nature becomes pretty apparent. People don't like to work for free. They aren't going to show up at a job expecting to get paid and then not get paid week after week and keep going in.

With STEEM the issue becomes that if they come in thinking they can earn money blogging and they don't earn anything they will quit. If they power up money from the outside and it doesn't even change their vote or seem to do anything for them they are going to feel like it was a mistake and this whole system is totally rigged.

When people invest in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero.....etc they have at some point likely already traded their time for money at an earlier stage. With STEEM it can be a double whammy because a person could invest a bunch of money anticipating that will will allow them to gain influence and be able to generate more money out of the system. Then they throw more time in after they invested the money and if the price goes down their "past time" and their "present time" eroded away. To most people the amount our votes increase at the lower levels make it questionable to power up because we still won't have enough influence on the reward pool to sustain ourselves. I have thought a lot about this in regards to if a person put $100,000 into STEEM vs a rental property or a business and while it is pretty hard to really get an exact answer because of not knowing future pricing and all kinds of factors I'm not necessarily real confident in doing something like that even when compared to investing in stuff like Litecoin, Monero, or any other coin that likely isn't going to pay any dividend or anything additional.

My entire 2 years on STEEM I have felt like it is teetering on breaking out and being the best thing ever and just being a whale hangout circle jerk that will fail. By fail I mean not keep growing. Everything will continue here even if it ends up being 20 whales circle jerking themselves down the drain.

As far as a solution to the Initial distribution I believe that air droping substantial amounts of STEEM Power into people's accounts who have achieved certain reputation levels, have good engagement, and have a minimum threshold of STEEM Power already Like 500 SP would eventually pay dividends. Everyone gets dropped and equal amount out of the Steemit account. We can take it out of the Stellar and TRON playbooks. I have been airdropped a little bit of TRON twice when I never expected it and it was putting it in people's minds.

If a lot of people got an airdrop of STEEM Power they would feel really strongly about the future. It is like if you hire some guys to help paint or do housing projects and you go buy some pizza for them unexpectedly. They will do a better job and be loyal do the job because they appreciate it.

I don't believe Steemit INC will do anything like this even though just fracturing off 10% of that STEEMIT account to do this would go a very long ways. Their way of sort of doing that is by doing the delegated power to the 3rd party apps but ultimately it is the 3rd party apps decision whether to give you an upvote or not and sometimes it is a very low percentage of the time. DTube is hard to get upvotes from and so is DLive.

But regardless I think this has been an interesting experiment and a really great platform could be formed from the mistakes made here. Someone just needs to have the resources to execute better and have a fair launch. Most of us will likely have a better chance with our EOS investment.

·
·
·
·

I’m hopping on a plane in a bit, but I’ll give a quick response now. I hear your concerns (an airdrop would be interesting, maybe after HF20 and the changes needed so accounts can be mined instead of paid for). It seems you’re concerned about cryptocurrency in general. It’s a speculative investment and not for everyone. I also think people should have accurate expectations about STEEM and Steemit. It’s not a job. Other social media sites don’t pay anything. Those who leave because they didn’t get paid already had a confused expectation, IMO. That said, we can still make some improvements and that’s what Kevin’s post is all about discussing.

·
·
·
·
·

I'm not really concerned about crypto in general. It will surge again and go parabolic like always. Whether that is at the end of this year or a lot further in the future it will surge even harder the next time.

It is hard to explain my frustration as well as others frustration with STEEM. Don't get me wrong there are so many amazing things that the platform is capable of and when someone looks at DTube or DLive or eSteem or anything that connects to this blockchain it is amazing and light years ahead of everything else. But there has been this cloud of unfairness here from the start that I haven't ever felt about any other blockchain.

From someone becoming a top 40 Witness to someone being a "successful" content creator on here it doesn't seem very accessible to be honest and it never did.

Again I don't feel that way about any other blockchain really. I paid $4,200 for my SmartNode and I'm way upside down on that investment but I don't really worry about it. My cost basis is $0.04 for my Electroneum investment and I'm upside down but I don't worry about it even though the Electroneum team has dropped the ball 10 times or more. I can wait it out. I don't worry that Satoshi has a million Bitcoins. There is just something about STEEM that makes me want to look at the ground and shake my head. It is part of the reason I never went deeper into it. EOS has a fair distribution and maybe the Steemit competitor on there won't be any good but I'm ok with that. I feel like I got a fair opportunity to take my position with EOS.

You are right. STEEM isn't a JOB. It is more like a business. Like buying into a franchise. Someone could fail at running a Subway or Coldstone Creamery. STEEM feels more like that....... where you buy into it to chase the carrot and then you spend everyday on it to do your best and could still end up losing your money and time.

Sounds bad and don't get me wrong. What has been built is pretty amazing but it can still be a time trap and a bad investment for a lot of us.

·
·
·
·

Last year I was thinking air dropping a reward to people who had posted in the last week or month was a great way to encourage posts and activity. I agree you don’t want to go too far from linearity so people will power up but n to 1.1 might be fine

·
·
·
·
·

Maybe a combination of doing an air drop and slightly modifying the curve would work....... because at the end of the day changing the reward curve away from linear will take a lot away from a lot of people.

As a saving grace they might feel better if they got an air drop of STEEM Power for being engaged and spending time on the platform.

Don't hold your breath though. I don't think it will happen.

·
·
·
·
·
·

That guy that self votes technical analysis everyday will definitely be pissed about a curve change!

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

He would actually become more powerful and his rewards would even be worth more than they are now.

·
·

I think it is questionable what percentage of Steemians would really want to have these changes put in place.

Since Steemit's inception, many members have been afraid to speak their minds about issues in fear of being written off as just a simple whiner or worse; many think speaking up could somehow interfere with their success here. They don't want to say the wrong thing around certain people because that could mean it's game over. That's a myth, but some are afraid. Your typical workplace suffers from the same problems. People don't want to irritate their boss. That's life.

Now, if there's one thing people have not been afraid to speak openly about over these past many months, it's the current situation we see ourselves in. People express themselves and if you pay attention: they're not happy with the bidbots, nobody seems to be voting for their work, nobody seems to be around to even look. People should start paying attention to those words. They're not afraid to talk about it. That's a good indication the people don't have much to lose if they speak. It's a plea for help.

Thousands of eyes are concentrated into one vote when members delegate their SP to bots. Providing an alternative that offers more incentives to be here and engage with the platform will benefit every member here because it breathes new life into something that many are seeing fade away. They don't want it to go away. That's a good sign. People still want this place to thrive. They're not giving up.

It's not a loud minority. If you look around and actually pay attention to what people are complaining about, and take them seriously instead of assuming they're simply having a bad day and need to vent, you'll find your answers. It's no secret. People want change.

We don't need to throw this place in the garbage and buy a new one. Planned obsolescence wasn't what people signed up for.

·
·
·

Sure people want change. People want to have a magic money machine and be able to get enough money out of here to pay their bills.

The platform will continue on and if a person's timing is right they can buy in and get capital appreciation and earn more while they are HODLing. That is the main advantage here.

But will that overcome the advantage of getting a ton of Airdrops with EOS? only time will tell.

I think everyone in crypto should have accounts on STEEM and understand this ecosystem as part of their portfolio.

I just could never consider this platform the end all be all because of the way the distribution was when it launched.

STEEMIT INC and a handful of others made a ton of money so it all served its intended purpose. Now we are in here trying to gain what we can. Also I'm trying to get Internet Famous over here as well.

Repectfully, you are completely mistaken about downvoting. I understand this is not necessarily a popular point of view because downvoting can cause a lot of problems. However, ultimately downvoting is the only way to differentiate between 'good' content and 'bad' content or between value creation and value extraction, or any other distinction you want to make (and we should be well aware by now of the critical importance of making such distinctions).

Curation rewards (and increasing them) are okay, but ultimately they too can be captured, sold, and redistributed. Current bid bots just keep their curation rewards, but make curation rewards bigger and they will start sharing those back with delegators and/or customers in a new form of mediated self-voting.

Non-linear rewards similarly incentivize concentration of voting (which has at times been also identified as a villain to a healthy Steem economy), but they still can't differentiate between good concentration and bad concentration. Again, this can also be captured and redistributed. For example, most current bid bots divide their vote among all bidders. But bid bots could do something different, like only vote on the top 5 bids, ensuring higher concentration and better returns. Or impose other rules enforcing sufficient concentration. It also rather directly encourages vote trading (of the form: "We both vote for all of my posts, and in exchange we will both vote for all of your posts.") This in no way improves the content or the economy. It has some modest benefits in increasing the visibility of rewards being paid out and discouraging spam, but beyond that, not much help to the quality of content or value-creating activities.

Your comments about economic incentives and getting a better equilibrium are spot on, but the way that such an equilibrium is defined to favor a particular kind of activity is almost entirely via downvoting. Our current problems largely derive from insufficient downvoting: As you said, the dominant part of the current equilibrium is content-neutral, but again, how do you encourage an economic equilibrium that is not neutral. The only answer I see that actually does that is downvoting.

That doesn't mean there will actually be a lot of downvoting going forward (particularly after a transition period, as people figure out the 'new rules'). Downvoting is costly to at least one and arguably both sides of the deal (upvoters and downvoters) and naturally an equilibrium will tend to discourage it (just hopefully less so than now), but the resulting equilibrium will have voters who are more careful about what they vote on (doesn't that sound nicely non-neutral to you?!) because they face a real risk of downvoting if they engage in bad behavior (defined above, and by you and others very well in the past).

I know downvoting is controversial and in many ways unpopular, and that it has real costs in terms of potential for conflict, discouragement, etc. But if we want a better economy and better functioning voting system we are going to have to swallow the bitter medicine, and not by watering it down and describing what is needed as being only 'moderate' (as you unfortunately did above).

FWIW, I don't believe much non-linearity is needed, in part because downvoting already introduces non-linearity (your return is no longer linear in your stake/vote power if you face a real risk of downvoting). However, I would support some modest non-linearity at the low end as an extra step in discouraging spam.

Also, one last comment. @lukestokes is absolutely right that step one in making changes like this consists of one of two things:

  1. Convincing Steemit Inc. to change its development priorities to addressing it.
  2. Undertaking a more comprehensive effort (as @lukestokes has described in some other comments) to de-centralize the development process and control over the code base. As things stand now, witnesses only have the ability to veto hard forks that are proposed by Steemit. Witnesses can not enact any changes that are not implemented and released by Steemit, absent a more comprehensive effort to rework the development process and control over the 'official' github repo.

I fully appreciate that your post may be, in part, directed at #1, and that's perfectly fine (even something I wholeheartedly support). However, many of your comments focus on the witnesses and unless you have #2 in mind, witnesses have a very limited role to play on this.

·

Witnesses can not enact any changes that are not implemented and released by Steemit.

To me this is one of the core issues that slows down innovation on Steemit.com. Two years ago it was sufficient for a witness to have knowledge about servers and how to run and maintain a node. The Witness rewards back than were a few 100 Dollars I think which covered the sever costs and a bit extra.

Today however that same model isn't sufficient anymore in my opinion. I don't want to get off topic but we can learn a lot from EOS here in a way that BlockProducers (witnesses) are expected to contribute to the development of the platform beside running a server and producing blocks.

The same requirement should be true here on Steemit and all 21 top witnesses should have the ability or hire the resources to suggest and implement improvements to the Steemit platform.

Unfortunately we can't count on Steemit.Inc to solve all issues for us, that is why the top witnesses should be empowered to make improvements them self.

·

The other side is to take a look at what is working. I think Utopian.io is an example of a non-profit model that could thrive on a system like this... provided it has the proper support.

Steem is a DAO, and the voting system is broken for it's intended purpose. I agree that flagging is a huge part of the equation here that is totally broken.

We should look at what other DAO's are doing in the field. How has District0x and DAOstack Aragon approach these issues? All of them have written very interesting articles about the game theory in creating token curated registries like STEEM.

Part of the problem is there is no organized way for us to talk about these things. As others have said there is a lot of shouting, but not so much getting done.

·
·

All of them have written very interesting articles

Please give me the links to the articles you believe are relevant. It is impossible to follow every single blockchain project.

·
·
·

Ok these are articles from projects that are just now entering mainnet. Their main difference from steem being they are platforms preparing to enable groups to set up a huge range of DAOs, including steem style registries. I think these articles are relevant and might help you in the direction you going.

On token curated registries
https://medium.com/@ilovebagels/token-curated-registries-1-0-61a232f8dac7

Grading content on a TCR with up and down votes:
https://medium.com/@sebastian.gajek/graded-token-curated-decisions-with-up-downvoting-designing-cryptoeconomic-ranking-and-2ce7c000bb51

Daostack article on decentralized governance
https://medium.com/daostack/decentralized-governance-first-principles-1fc6eaa492ed

"What community governance actually entails"
https://blog.aragon.one/aragon-will-be-community-governed-5069ed8d0a33

Thread on governance algorithms:
https://reddit.com/comments/4rtpmm

These articles are from:
Argon - their "newspaper" is here (https://monthly.aragon.one/news/aragon/)
Daostack
District0x - another project to look at

·

Maybe we need anonymous downvoting. Could we add ring signatures? I would down vote much more if it’s secretive. Any monero Devs around @smooth.

·
·

Unfortunately it is rather hard to do anonymous transactions in Steem because it does not use traditional transaction fees, and instead needs to charge bandwidth usage to the sender.

·

Kevin wants to increase incentives for downvotes.

Slightly increased downvote incentives.

Isn’t that what you want also? I’m confused about which part is completely wrong.

·
·

I've said this before in comments, but the downvoting tool is like putting a chainsaw in the hands of a 6 year old. There are simply those intent on adding no value but only reaping any rewards they can gain with the least amount of work. Some of the big downvoters run an attack business and anyone innocently in their way gets taken out with his chainsaw. I actually hate the ability to downvote because it simply gets abused by people intent on either controlling the rewards pool so there is more available for them or to just plain be vicious. Bernie Sanders comes to mind...

·
·

"Slightly"

The overall take from the post as I read it was that downvoting was a relatively minor element. In my view that is completely wrong and downvoting is in fact tthe most important element by far, perhaps the only important element.

·
·
·

Thanks for clarifying.

·

Thanks for responding @smooth. I’d like to reply similarly to what I’ve written to Luke above. Our proposal has also addressed the downvote portion like you’ve mentioned, and we’ve also considered the other modifications as preventative measures as well when it comes to flaggable activities.

However, I would support some modest non-linearity at the low end as an extra step in discouraging spam.

Yup, this is the plan. Maintain linear at the high-end.

And yes to be honest, I’ve no good idea of how things really work in a dpos setting and thought block producers are literally the ones making Steem what Steem is. I may write to Steemit, but in the end it'll still be up to the top witnesses to handle and execute the code? I may be wrong about a lot of how things work around here.

·
·

@lukestokes is the one to best address the issue of how to evolve the development process and governance (since he has probably thought about it the most and also written some about it) but as I mentioned, in practice, currently witnesses can only veto. There is movement in the direction of a more inclusive development workflow but if you want change now, lobby Steemit (the developers) and then once they release something you like, lobby witnesses to approve it (or if they release something you don't like, lobby witnesses to reject it).

·
·
·

Ah got it, thanks. It's been close to a year since the last HF. I thought that the 7x difference between curation and non-curation would've been causing an alarm. What has been stopping any tweaks and changes to move away from the situation? Or perhaps they're seeing value in self-voting/vote-trading that many are not seeing?? Confusing lol.

·
·
·
·

What has been stopping any tweaks and changes to move away from the situation?

It isn't a priority of Steemit Inc nor on their roadmap. Their approach is focused on SMTs and other priorities. The idea of decentralizing development so that priorities aren't solely determined by Steemit Inc absolutely has validity but is first of all a complex transition to pull of and second of all, I also see some skepticism that the system "too new" to be ready for that..I don't agree with the latter, however, I do agree with the former and because of the scale and complexity of such a transition, it will only happen if there is widespread and non-reluctant support for it

·

Curation rewards (and increasing them) are okay, but ultimately they too can be captured, sold, and redistributed.

What? Curation rewards depend on what you vote. If you start voting on shit content and 90%+ of the inflation goes to curation, good luck finding a way to redistribute or sell it in any viable way.
Curation is the ultimate 'proof of human' in our network. No bot will ever be able to judge a content better than a human.

·
·

Curation rewards depend on what you vote

No, it depends on whether other stake votes for it too, not what it is. It is mostly a measure of concentration.

If I agree to vote after you and you agree to vote after me we both gain curation rewards. Or if we both delegate to a bot and the bot ends up making a single very large vote then we still gain curation rewards. Again, it is all about concentration unless someone else comes along and downvotes. Downvotes are different because they don't directly gain from concentration the superlinearity as curation rewards do. You can't help yourself or agree to help (trade votes with) your friend or swarm together to increase rewards by downvoting (although I guess you could help your friend a tiny bit by downvoting other posts; this obviously is of minimal significance).

Curation is the ultimate 'proof of human' in our network. No bot will ever be able to judge a content better than a human.

That would be ideal, but without humans downvoting where does the input to say whether the curation rewards are being paid to actually 'judge' the content as opposed to just rewarding vote concentration, swarming, vote trading, concentrated stake, etc.?

·

Maybe just bind people to downvote then ?
Like you have 10 upvotes and one downvote daily and unless you actually do your daily downvote your voting power will sink.

  ·  3년 전

I don't know if the proposed changes are the right ones, but I do completely agree with you that the economics we have today is wrong and will degrade the value of Steem over time. I for one, would love to see some changes. With those changes we (STINC, witnesses, community) shall analyses the results. I think we need to go through some serial changes, tweaking and tuning.

On topic of witnesses. The article you resteemed written by donkeypong shows some of our top witnesses trying to earn even more money by running nodes in other blockchains...could that be the reason why they dont have time to get the economics in Steem correct? Certainly, they are de-risking their efforts in crypto space, when Steem goes down the drain, they may have a winner in some other blockchain. And I'm pretty sure it is not only EOS they are part of, but other chains as well. I don't like witnesses making excuses for what they do, whilst they dont take care of Steem, and in the mean time taking in a LOT of money!

But but but ... Long story short .... I fully agree with you, we shall change the economics of Steem now.

as i said before you could put a Captcha whenever you make a post or a comment it will certainly defeat some of the bots spamming.

Why superlinear rewards? There are no issues whatsoever with linear rewards. As if the current bid bot situation was created by the linear rewards? It is not the case. Linear rewards are the best thing ever to happen on this blockchain and give freedom to people.

I agree with everything else, except I think 50% to curators is way too less. This won't solve the bid bot problem. Curation should go ~90%.

·

50% is a good starting point IMO. It has the advantage of maximizing leveraged effect. Current curation is about 15%. Increasing that to 50% means shifting 35%, That's a reduction of 41% to author payouts (certainly a sting) and an increase of 233% to curators, which is dramatic and can easily have effects that need to be observed to really assess. Once you get to the point of parity, robbing Peter to pay Paul becomes more symmetric (10% increase to one is 10% decrease to the other) and far less dramatic in the relative effect. It may still be necessary or beneficial but I'd be in favor of trying 50% first.

·
·

Why have author rewards at all? Just key authors curate first. We need to turn curation up as high as possible.

·
·
·

Cool suggestion. I have passed it along to some other witnesses and major stakeholders for discussion.

·
·
·
·

Maybe eliminating author rewards would allow some simplification as well.

With all this crap out there the first upvote is almost as valuable to the platform as a good piece.

The thirty minute rule would give repeat authors all the curation rewards from front running vote bots that bet on sure thing authors. I think good authors would do quite well.

But more importantly, good curators would do better than now.

Philisophically authoring is an act of curation. Organizing and highlighting ideas and typing them up is not much different than organizing the platforms “posts” that show up on the front page by voting for them with an appropriate degree of voting power. The author curates his mind from invisible to visible and each subsequent curator increases (or decreases) that visibility.

Thanks for taking the idea to others. I recommended it last year or maybe even I. 2016 so I have thought of it for a while but I still think it’s a good one.

(No need for reply)

I'm not sure you are "absolutely right" and that we'll see these expected benefits after having implemented these changes. I am actually sure you can't know you're right; I get that a lot when discussing economics, so you may blame me.

In this case, I suspect things will merrily carry on as before, with different money-making algorithms, as with the current distribution of Steemses, there is always a way of doing that.

But I don't care much about all that anymore, and I don't think it is worth arguing about.

If we do nothing, things will go down the drain with some very unpleasant noises, so let's just try your proposals and see what happens. If things get worse, roll back, if things stay the same or get better, keep the changes, and start thinking about other changes, if necessary.

It's the only way forward (and also the only way to show you are right).

I am afraid, however, that it will be difficult to find enough witnesses (or voting power) still interested enough to approve these changes.

The problem I've had with a lot of these proposals is NOT in trying them. I'm up for trying anything new, learning from it, and moving on if we need to.

However, proposing things like counter self-voting. That is super easy to get around just by using alternate accounts.

I've seen such proposals to these issues and others for a long time. They always seem to be something easy to circumvent once you consider people having more than one account.

·

It’s not countering self-voting or vote trading (which is the same thing by the way). I will still do it. Most will still do it. It’s just the frequency. At 100%, these actions currently bring 6-10x returns compared to curation (either post or account curation, including autovoting). The proposal seeks to bridge the gap so behaviours will land on a new equilibrium, one that with more curation happening.

Putting it simply, getting back ~50% of votes on average is more likely to get curation going and less self-voting / vote selling because it’s already part of the 50/50 act in each vote.

Of course, many may still exercise 100% of their votes back for themselves directly or indirectly, at least the gap is only at most 2x more than anyone engaging in curation.

Shrinking the gap to 2x max between curation vs selfvoting, I’d say it’s much more reasonable, and 2x more than makes up for the benefits of actually building a social network instead of being an anti-social user on the platform.

·
·

To amplify a bit what you said...the 2x gap is much, much smaller than currently. Curation currently yields around 15% (after factoring in the typical effect of the reverse auction), meaning the ratio between self-voting and curation is about 7x. Even if the effect of the reverse auction were diminished or removed, it would still be 4x. I agree with you that is too high and even 2x may still be too high. We might need to go to a higher curation percentage which would narrow the gap further (for example, 90% curation would reduce it to about 1.1x).

However, before we go that far we should certainly try moving way from 7x first. So I agree with the 50% part of the proposal.

·
·
·

I've written to @dwinblood below about this, not sure if it checks out. 2x may be justifiable. I think anything more than 50% is gonna have a hard time with the author-types. 90% is leaving almost nothing for them (although I could see that it encourages way more curation than authoring, and probably closer to the spread of user types in any social content platform)

Putting it simply, getting back ~50% of votes on average is more likely to get curation going and less self-voting / vote trading because it’s already part of the 50/50 act in each vote.

Of course, many may still exercise 100% of their votes back for themselves directly or indirectly, at least the gap is only at most 2x more than anyone engaging in curation.

Shrinking the gap to 2x max between curation vs selfvoting, I’d say it’s much more reasonable, and 2x more than makes up for the benefits of actually building a social network vs a user just self-voting/vote-trading away.

edit: woops just realised this is the @dwinblood thread

·
·
·
·

more than 50% is gonna have a hard time with the author-types

Okay, "author types" are part of the community. Their opinion matters, but does that mean they have a veto?

I don't know if >50% is needed. But if it is needed to make the system work, what do we prefer? A system that doesn't work or pissing off the author types? I'll take the lesser evil if necessary,

·
·

Yes, I understand. I think your post was good and I'm willing to try it and pretty much anything. Keep what works well.

People can WHAT IF anything to death before trying it. So if people want to try new things I am certainly for it.

The average person would likely not think of alternative accounts. I don't know of many things that alternative accounts might not circumvent.

I also was talking about not being a fan of bidbots with someone a couple of days ago for many of the same reasons but I hadn't really deep dived into it at the level you did.

I self vote my post but I usually do only 1-2 posts per day. The rest I vote on other people. So I agree.

I also see and have seen these problems developing for a couple of years like you. I'd love to see it turned around. If it is not turned around I'll stick around until there is an alternative (perhaps EOS backed). Though I'll keep posting here as long as it remains functional.

I personally am not a fan of people down voting because they dislike the topic. I'd rather them ignore the post and go up vote stuff they like. It should balance out the same, and they are not restricting the interest of other people.

·
·
·

Downvoting is not really about disliking the topic.

I've suggested for a long time that we also have non-voting 'reactions' (like emoticons) where people can easily and concisely express an opinion (agree, disagree, etc.) separate from the reward-voting system. I understand this is part of the Steemit roadmap and is under development (I don't know at what stage).

Upvoting is really about thinking that rewarding the content brings value to Steem. It's a form of tipping where instead of tipping out of your own pocket, you get to tip out of a community pool. Downvoting is about thinking that it doesn't (or that the reward is excessive). Since the tips are being paid from a community pool, everyone gets a vote, and people need to keep each other honest by downvoting when necessary. If we don't like that, then we need to dispense with the community pool concept, people and people can tip with their own money (with no chance of being downvoted).

The two concepts are very distinct but both are necessary.

·
·
·
·

Yeah, you and I had this discussion a few times almost two years ago.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the disagreement comes from the clash between those who view voting as a shareholder would view it and those who view voting as a market.

The only minds we control are our own. So forcing our interpretation upon others as the correct way won't really ever work. There will always be contention. This is partially why I don't discuss it as much anymore as I don't really have a workable solution.

The reality it is both of those views slammed together and they may not be completely compatible. What you described DOES accurately define voting in a shareholder type of environment.

It does not describe a market.

I contend that the vast amount of people do not view using steem as a shareholder environment. Many of them may never have been on a board, been a shareholder or anything of that nature so that type of interaction is totally alien to their mind.

In a market there is no down vote. It is simply supply and demand. There is no anti-demand. I describe it like walking into a store. You go in and buy (vote) for what you want. You don't go in and say "I hate anchovies, they shouldn't be on the shelf". You ignore the anchovies and buy what you are interested in. That creates demand for your interest. Yet it does not cancel demand for other topics you are not interested in they are just much lower.

The problem with what is good for steem shareholder mentality is that it is that it enables people to pull stuff off of the shelves of the market because THEY subjectively don't think it adds value. It doesn't matter that others may think it is valuable. If power is sufficient since it is not a 1:1 voting situation it gives some the ability to be dictators and totally squash the interest of others. And that DOES happen on steem. That is not good for STEEM as far as I am concerned.

I no longer advocate for removing down voting and I haven't for a long time as it is the only way currently to combat spam, plagiarism, and abuse. Though abuse also becomes subjective.

I do believe adding the reward pool as a reason to down vote was a very bad idea. If people voted on demand then it will level itself out as it spread the actual interests across the pool. Will there be people gaming it if that were the case? Yes. Guess what? Many of the people claiming reward pool as justification for a down vote have been heavily gaming the system all along. That is going to happen.

"Code is law". No... code is what the programmer could determine how to implement. We know no solution to this at the moment that the code can fix. That doesn't mean we as a community cannot fix this. That is why it keeps coming up.

So the only thing I've been doing for awhile is trying to convince people not to down vote because they dislike someone, or disagree with what they are saying or talking about. That hurts steem. It may not hurt THEM but it hurts steem.

·
·
·
·
·

Thank you for the comments. I found them illuminating.

trying to convince people not to down vote because they dislike someone, or disagree with what they are saying or talking about

We do agree on this at least.

·
·
·
·
·
·

That is my biggest issue and always has been. I've seen people say they were doing it to protect the reward pool so they didn't appear to be doing it for dislike reasons then have watched them ignore or in cases up vote other content that if it were reward pool reasons they shouldn't have been up voting and potentially should have been down voting. This made me mostly view the reward pool excuse as a way to try to justify inconsistent application based upon even their own voting habits.

I've only been heavily down voted one time. That also came long after I'd mostly stopped talking about the subject. When I was talking about the subject it was always in defense of others. It was truly about trying to make steem a hospitable and inviting place.

I'd watch the conversations and see the toxic reactions people would have when their post was voted to almost nothing (sometimes was nothing) when it was not spam, it was not plagiarism, it was not abusive, and it happened to people when they were barely touching the reward pool.

Often they were pretty new. Then you can look at the people that get targeted clearly by bots designed to down vote everything they do by some powerful people and that doesn't send a positive perception about steem at all.

Do I have a solution? No.

Every solution I come up with in my head either introduces other problems, or I can easily see how to game.

That's part of the challenge of doing something no one has ever done before. It also introduces problems people haven't encountered before.

Thanks for the response. I haven't seen you write anything for awhile, but I suspect it is mainly because we are moving in different circles.

Reminds me of this article I read recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/29/the-financial-scandal-no-one-is-talking-about-big-four-accountancy-firms

You can't really entrust a group of individuals to guard a system when they are profiting from the brokenness of it. External market factors only temporarily mask how damaging the net behavior of all of these activities really are.

I am honestly not a fan of n > 1. I think we have already been seeing a race to the bottom with the cuts the bidbots are taking, but as they give more and more rewards to compete against each other they only become more attractive investment choices for those who delegate to them.

There is not enough combined sentiment+voting power to combat what is approaching a majority bidbot environment.

I think the major issue since the inception of steemit has been the distribution of steem caused there to be too few tastemakers, which narrowed the channel of content that was acceptable to those whose votes mattered, driving away a broader userbase whose interests fall outside of that spectrum of favored topic content creators.

This created a feedback loop of sorts wherein we have seen over time a slight distribution out towards those who write articles deemed favorable by those few individuals, they in turn continue to write what they've always been writing with an aim towards pleasing those same individuals, which is why the number of medium-sized SP holders who all write with very similar biases outnumbers those with varied interests and views.

And if steemit attracted some people over time who were interested only in investing and growing their investments, then they would naturally gravitate towards bidbots and other profit-making services, as they bought in with little to no intention of involving themselves in anything other than the money-related aspects of steemit. I think there were very few "true" idealists in crypto to begin with who found themselves on the platform, and they are outnumbered by those who have no desire to change any systems or rock and boats and are content to maximize within whatever system is available to them.

After the raid at Upbit we can see that Upbit volume of STEEM trading is already being outpaced by Huobi and even Binance, so now that we have potentially lost the Upbit frenzy upside potential I think it is due time for the markets to punish and properly price large steem holders who have been content with the status quo for too long.

Not to say that I think that it did not take some balls to hold a giant steem bag throughout the rise and fall of this past trading season, but I do think that because the rising tide lifted all ships it had lulled many into thinking that what they were doing with their SP was not that damaging to steem and steemit's future, which I think is totally wrong-minded if we look deeper at the economic realities and continued disinterest in steemit by an apathetic general public in many regions and user types.

If steemit was really doing as well as many claim it is, then, well, I don't know what to say to them, I would just ask them why aren't more people using this site recreationally from the middle band of the global income spectrum. As opposed to just being "forced" to use the platform as a means to potentially earn wages because of lack of other opportunities in their respective countries on the low end, or the idea that they can get rich if they use a stack of money to print more money on the high end.

·

true. unjustice. not inequality but incentives misalignment can shatter the system, or at least to immobilize it

·
·

There will probably always be "injustice" on here like in life. I don't think our incentives can ever be perfect maybe a 50/50 split would help but it might hurt.
Do you use @dustsweeper? There is a .02 payout threshold .
I Really think we should lower the threshold to .01!

·
·
·

injustice = measure of ubiquity of rules enforcement. privilege or oppression is not very healthy-wealthy for any society. nothing is perfect. perfection is after eternity, which is the best thing in this universe. No. I don't know how to use anything. I'm total novice. What is @dustsweeper ? What it does and how it works?

·
·
·
·

It is going to suck for the people who sign up a year or two from now especially if we have $1 million active users. Perhaps some of them might be able to earn 1 Steem that will be worth $1,000 but probably most will not. We are not in a magical perfect world so I don't see how we can design a system where a billion newbies can sign up to Steem and make decent money right off the bat.
Send your .352 SBD's to dustsweeper so I can upvote your replies. Right now if you have a post or comment that is under .02 you do not get paid anything even if it is .019 and shows as .02.
https://steemit.com/dustsweeper/@dustsweeper/dustsweeper-faq
The only downside is it is low on Steem Power so some votes are still being wasted.

I see you’ve been reading the #price chat. :)

I agree with most of this, particularly the comments about witnesses at the top. They’re a bit too comfortable collecting their witness rewards while watching this place burn to the ground...or worse - continually throwing more fuel into the fire.

Unfortunately, those approving them don’t care, so the needed fixes won’t happen. It’s not that we’re talking past each other. It’s that most people are unwilling to see and to listen. And if they aren’t just completely ignorant/oblivious, they’re just completely dishonest.

It all starts at the top, and unfortunately, we have no leaders there willing to be good examples. So, more circling the drain is in the cards. This is apparently the desire of our esteemed and extremely overpaid gatekeepers. How fortunate we are!

·

haha i haven't logged into steem.chat in while ever since riverhead left..

yeah now i'm seeing this as one of the bigger problems with dpos.

·

There is an upside to this: if the top-20 witnesses and some big wallets approve of one of the changes, we will have to take a very close look at that change. There's some predictive power there.

Other than that: fortunate indeed, my cup runneth over. Should have puked in the toilet.

what passes for curation on this platform amounts to a race to see who votes fastest. It does very little to move actual good content to greater visibility.

All too often the race to vote is being accomplished with bots and autovoting. Increasing the curation rewards increases the incentives for bot owners while taking rewards away from the content creators.

Content creators already feel largely undervalued now. Decrease what they they earn now and more good content creators will be looking for other avenues and leaving the platform to the spammers and shit posters.

·

You probably missed this 👇

the exponential increase would favour high SP users too much, hence the adding a cap to the modest superlinear, which means having linear rewards on the higher-end SP so that high SP users wouldn't get the disproportionate influence.

·

what passes for curation on this platform amounts to a race to see who votes fastest.

I'd agree with this. I'm sliding between a casual/active user and 50% of my voting power are automated, so I can imagine more being entirely automated. It's not a problem, because I'm curating trustworthy accounts that way, and have the network build from there.

It does very little to move actual good content to greater visibility.

Will have a better chance to happen under our proposal.

All too often the race to vote is being accomplished with bots and autovoting.
Again, autovoting isn't the problem. Misaligned incentives is the problem. Curation should be more incentivised.

Content creators already feel largely undervalued now. Decrease what they they earn now and more good content creators will be looking for other avenues and leaving the platform to the spammers and shit posters.

Our proposal will reduce spam and shitposters. 50% curation rewards might sound like taking away from authors, but what happens if it results in a better Steem? We definitely could use more curators than authors, which is what this proposal seeks to achieve.

Thanks for your feedback.

I stopped taking this post seriously when you stated you know the truth and that you are right. :)

I just see it differently. I am not for the changes.

There is no point in debating with someone that already has decided they are right and they only understand the truth.

·

Well, I'd say that the arguments matter. Nothing annoying into s.b. stating that he feels he's right. It would be strange if the guy wastes couple of hours to put together a quite consistent and tidy outlay of structured statements and to declare 'i'm not right', or 'i'm not sure i'm right' or 'i don't give a f... if i'm right' :)

·
·

That is why it doesn't take an entire paragraph to tell others that you believe in your own view. :)

And to ensure the reader that even if they hold a different view, it is because they don't acknowledge that you are right.

It's not really the way to open a conversation. :) I did get a chuckle out of your comment though.

I don't think Kevin took it personally, he knows I respect him, that is different than agreeing with him. :)

·

We've just got a flawed economic system that provides the very action we don't want with the highest rewards."

Please wake up!

·
·

I am fully awake and I understand that we are still under development. Yes, the whole thing is flawed.

There is no market for this content. Off of steemIt what would this post be worth?

Likely absolutely nothing.

So, if you want to discuss the flaws. The entire thing defies reason. Maybe we should start there.

You just picked a spot to point at. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I just see different ways for it to play out.

I'm awake, I disagree respectfully. :) I am happy for your passion though.

·
·
·

It doesn't matter if the post is worth elsewhere or not. Steem is a decentralised organisation and all we're doing here is about an "insider" economy. It's about increasing the chances that Steem is going to the hands of those that are actually investing time and effort in the platform. Oh well that's my take anyway..

I get it that I might be wrong. Just saying that I'm right in my own light like anyone would, as explained.. thanks @whatsup

·
·
·
·

Yes. if good ... i.e. as you said it is just about alignment of economic incentives ... it would grow like wildfire, snowballing, avalanche - for the good of all, EVEN the poor get richer, does not matter it is slowlier. The trouble is low churn, b.s. content, all these things which make it less attractive.

·
·
·

This comment would have made sense if the December Bubble didn't draw the eyes of the world towards Steemit. If Steemit was still that weird geeky loner sitting quietly on the cyberspace with no media eyes checking it out. I have read your posts and seen your take on matters like this. If such POV prevailed on this platform, bidbutts and whales will keep raping the system, demotivated folks will increase, vast majority will hands up, Dan will replicate the fuck out of Steemit and his secret agents that still happen to be your top witnesses will jump ship. Waiting for Ned's SMTs? Goodluck with that.

·
·
·
·

I guess we agree to disagree. I am fine with that.

Really deep grok article, dear Kev. I'd refer again to this ancient (2015) article applying real understanding of economy and going over DPOS, too: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ - this can give some solid base for consideration of better results. Also, on Kantianism vs Utilitarianism ... I prefer not -isms ( ethical ideology ) but directly on the iron implementation of ethi-CS . See this.: http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/The%20Entropy%20of%20Choice.html

Im sure you noticed me commenting quite a bit on your posts lately. You even mentioned one of my arguments in a politely dismissive way. (if it was the accumulated point of more people, then even better).

During my time reading what you write i find myself in a perpetual state or reexamination. Trying to see your point of view and i almost agree on every point you make except the solution. I tried to see if this was in any way an improvement over the current tragic state of things. But i cannot.

You speak about economic incentives, shift in reward distribution towards more curation. And you are completely, 100% right when you say that this change would completely remove the biggest problem Steem faces. Vote buying. And that is amazing.
But what would happen essentially is replace one problem with another.

On your point about self voting. No, this idea wouldnt change that in anyway. I actually firmly believe it would increase self voting since you take away one action of pure selfish (what i mean by selfish i explain in my post on "A case for enlightened self interest) self interest, massive SP delegation to bots, and leave no options but self voting for those that even considered participating in the "vote buying industry" that hurts Steem tremendously.

Its a matter of human character more then any economic parameter.
You will just have those whales upvoting themselves at a much greater rate. Some have even said they would sell their votes for Bitcoin if bots are made non-profitable.
And yes, you would make those that are rich even richer because, as i said, those that act in such a way already, gaining the most with the least amount of work would continue to act in such a way, but bots at least allow (tragic as it might be) for growth of minnows.

The effect your proposition would have imo is the following:

  1. You kill the incentive to purchase votes (great)
  2. You make self voting the most profitable action
  3. You kill minnow growth since those that currently delegate to bots will most of the times always look for the next, down the line most profitable thing and will not actively curate.
  4. You increase your own gains.
  5. Trending page is populated with self voters.

You changed something and its not better. Its a different but broken system.
You have been very active lately on this topic but i have to repeat again, we need to wait for SMTs.
From what ive seen they will allow those that are voiceless, minnows like me, those that fear disagreeing with a "Kevin Wong" a "Bernie Sanders" a "Jerry Banfield" to be able to speak up.(only equating you to them in influence)

1 account/1 vote means the community can lift you up to a place where your voice can be heard if they find you of worth.
Once there is a more even field in influence between high and low stake holders you can push forward with greater changes.

I keep on repeating this, but its very hard for this to be taken seriously in any way in a environment populated with Libertarians and Anarchists.
Rules, of any kind, are a "4 letter word".

In any society (and Steem is a society) economic incentives differ between the classes and wakes of life. There is no economic solution to solve the problems of all the classes on Steem. It cannot be done through purely economic means.
Even with SMTs, im positive something will rise up as a big problem.

Society needs rules. Characters differ, wealth differs, value each individual brings differ. You cannot align people to function in an effective way that increases the overall value of the community as a whole without setting rules in place.
How do you fix Steem? Do what Dan did. Make a "Constitution".
Put in place the basic of rules that deal with greatest of issues and get Witnesses to vote on it before its too late...

Lets be honest here. The witness top 20 are getting populated with Bot owners. Bot owners that have the wealth to be trending every single day. Some of them are.
In time you could even see them take complete control. Once that happens, do you really they will allow any change that hurts their bottom line?
Once the minnows have more power (which are the majority) that i hope SMTs will bring, there wont be any of this. We would make Steem as we see fit.

Your proposition does not lift up the small voices so i unfortunately cant agree with it.
"The principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals."
Amazing post nonetheless.

i everyday write about malaysia numismatic history but did not get much vote. Sometime i wonder if people really care about what i write. i don't really care if i don't get 100+ SBD because history Are Not Everyone’s Cup of Tea… and That’s OK but it piss me when shitty post get 100+ SBD.

·

Exactly. The current economic incentives are simply not aligned with rewarding high quality content even considering that quality is context dependent and a high quality post with a small audience will not produce as much in rewards as a post with a large audience.

Hi @kevinwong
Can you please explain "Capped modest superlinear (ie modest superlinear n~1.3 in lower-end, linear in higher-end)" in layman's terms so that an older railway worker, which I am can understand. How will this work in practice.
How will it work if we can limit self votes to two and then the remaining votes have to be used for curation? This will also limit self-voting and then people will have to use the remaining votes for curation, if they want to earn more. (Bought votes can also be counted as self-votes, I am sure the programmers can code something like this) I still believe vote buying should be eradicated completely. @oneminja received over a $1000 from votebots, which is not right, I wonder what it cost him to get that kind of money. (I have nothing against his post, it is actually a decent post with quite a bit of work going into it). Perhaps self voting on comments can also be stopped completely. I also see a number of people running various accounts, voting on each other and resteeming each other, this is again another form of self voting.
I just cant understand why people will mess up a very good thing for everybody including themselves for short term profit.
This is my opinion on the subject, thank you for all your hard work to try and improve this platform!!

·

Linear rewards mean something like 10 SP vote = $0.01 and 100 SP vote = $ 0.10 which is 10x SP for 10x rewards (just giving example of relative scale, not absolute number). Under modest superlinear rewards, it means something like 10 SP vote = $0.001 and 100 SP vote = $0.03 which is 10x SP for 30x rewards and it'll exponentially increase. What this amounts to is the wide end of low SP users wouldn't be able to self-vote effectively and have a threshold before they get anything meaningful. It basically requires users to stack more votes for anything substantial, which promotes collective curation. However, the exponential increase would favour high SP users too much, hence the adding a cap to the modest superlinear, which means having linear rewards on the higher-end SP so that high SP users wouldn't get the disproportionate influence.

Yup, vote trading markets (and selfvoting) will become somewhat irrelevant under our proposal as it triggers a new economic equilibrium to equalise any style of voting (which is voting for others vs self-voting) and make it just as profitable no matter how one votes. Since there's also the modest superlinear rewards curve in place to encourage collective behaviour, more will tend to curate content. We can't eliminate self-voting, but we can make it less desirable to do so with new economic incentives that favour curation. It's like fixing a broken dam, but many can't see it at the moment because it's mathematical and has higher order effects on our activities here.

·
·

this can counter some of the illths of the inflationarity.

I am in agreement with others at in I don't know if these changes will work... (As I stated on another post, curation in my opinion is broken regardless of reward level)

However, I am completely with you in regards that something needs done and in my view it is always better to attempt something rather than nothing.

So, yes, bring these changes, if at all possible, on, I say.

look at that amazing comma usage in that last sentence. Incredible!!! :0D

Since I've been on steemit for just one week and am completely new to cryptocurrency, I don't think I can adequately assess the impact of the proposals above. However, as a new user I find kevinwong's posts and all of your comments very useful. I can also give my perspective as a new user. First, the idea that new users will get disappointed and leave after working hard to provide content that gets barely noticed, is understandable, but I don't think one of the main problems. My first real post was recognized by #steemitbloggers, which was great and made me realize that there are many on here trying to help. My second post, which I thought might get more attention since it discussed an interactive steem tag explorer that I made, got a few votes in the first hour or so and then nothing. But in hindsight, that is not really disappointing: I have only been here a week and have few followers. It will take time to build recognition. Besides, the same post on my (rarely used) Wordpress Blog would do about as well, or even worse. The real problem is that I'm not finding a lot of diverse high quality content. Much of the quality content is about Steem and Steemit. And while those with lots of steem power do produce quality content, even their not so great posts tend to get high rewards. In general, steemit just doesn't seem to be working to reward quality. Even more disturbing is quantalysus' analysis showing that Steem's Gini Coefficient is very close to 1 and has been for some time. In the real world, that would have already spawned a revolution, but on Steemit the masses really don't have any power to revolt... other than by leaving. Despite this, the platform is still a grand experiment and if you think of it as just a place to have a Blog, it is easier not to get disappointed.

·

Thanks @toddrjohnson. Yes, new users getting disappointed etc isn't the big problem. The economy that rewards worst behaviours the highest is. Getting rid of this market force will have a lot of positive effects on the economy, but of course all this at the "expense" of new users and low powered users voting for themselves or have their votes worth something, but again I don't think that's a problem at all.

The real problem is that I'm not finding a lot of diverse high quality content. Much of the quality content is about Steem and Steemit.

There's actually quite a lot of good content, but just gets buried and doesn't get noticed. @curie is a curation communities that does pretty well to help new users and old get recognised for the content they produce. But the current economy can't go on like that for too long, as it's tearing down the content and attention aspects of Steem.

·
·

Thanks for the information on @curie. I'm now following them. And thanks for upvoting my posts. I'll continue to work on providing quality posts, supporting others who provide quality, as well as those who are striving to improve Steemit. I do think the UI here could be improved to help surface some of that good content. A large part of my background is in UI design, but I'm not sure how I could make a difference here in that respect.

·
·
·

Hmm how about a UI-prototyping community?

Steemit.com's UI person is https://steemit.com/@pkattera I think. Other than that there's the @sndbox guys who's doing that @creativecrypto magazine-layout website. Yeah just out of my head atm. Oh and also there's where you can list and find out the apps around Steem (not sure if they're actively updating it) https://steemprojects.com/

·
·
·
·

Just followed @pkattera, but his last post was 5 months ago and last comment 7 months ago, so I'm not sure how active he is anymore with UI work here. I'm finding add-on's that help a bit with the UI and finding content, but since quality has both intrinsic and extrinsic properties, it would be best to have a UI and economic reward system that recognizes that. By intrinsic properties I mean properties of the content itself, such as whether it is original vs. copied, accurately achieves a stated goal, etc. By extrinsic I mean factors like the size of andinterest/needs of an audience, as well as other things going on in the world. For example, I find the Mathematica StackExchange site to have very high quality content both intrinsically (because there are so many detailed answers theres) and extrinsically (because I use Mathematica every day and often need to get help on StackExchange). On Steemit, I think higher quality content could be found much easier if the UI supported communities that could both curate and better organize content around some theme. This would address the extrinsic aspects of quality (that of audience interests). Some of this is being done organically here, but the UI doesn't really support the efforts, so it is done through browser add-ons, curation accounts, and other apps. That makes things really messy, especially for new users who are likely already overwhelmed by everything Steemit. The strange thing is that the models to do this area already out there on Facebook, where they are clearly successful and of value to users.

I do not know where the truth really is, and how efficient your model will be, one thing I can say for sure is that now we are going to hell.

When you spend a few days to write a post for yourself and a few more free bots, or when all your friends use voting-bots, depriving you of the opportunity to receive curation rewards for your vote ... hell, I feel that the authors and human curators are no longer needed here.

·

paperclip maximization, but without paper and ink ... and eyes and hands maximization.

Hmmmm we still got a long long way to go.... I like the part where you said "I'm generally chilled to the max." I have known you now a year ! And I think I do pretty much agree with that hahaha

·

it's a hard problem since they're getting enriched by the process for not doing anything about the issue.. yeah i can't chill when the problem is so clear :( lol

Even though I don't participate in any of these behaviors (tempting as it is, just to survive on this platform, lately) I do appreciate your compassion/understanding, here:

Anyone participating in these activities will more likely stop contributing to such corruption naturally when the right economic incentives are in place.

Also, sorry to say, but I agree that the great salaries witnesses are receiving are not justified, if they result in apathy. I'm not saying witnesses as civil servants should lead an altruistic life of service, but getting rich off our backs while we continue to struggle is not helping, either... Sigh

Most importantly, thanks, for pics of gorilla and pig butts :P

·

Yes, I've never considered this before until I got into the process of complaining and figuring out why there's so much dilly-dallying.

Increasing curation rewards sounds right to me because not everyone here might create quality content and creating good quality content consistently is actually hard to do but finding quality content and upvoting is something lots of people can do.

·

yes, exactly. @tshering-tamang
"they know things aren't right, but the paycheck is too good to rock the boat"

·
·

just like in any socialism, i.e. anti-economy. zero-sum ... if inflationary it always moves within - bottom to top until the top is tall and heavy over thin weak base.
'' Here lies a toppled god.
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.''
-- Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah :P
Like self-canibalization. Btw the great pseudonimous author of this great material ( https://www.scribd.com/document/354688866/Bitcoin-A-5-8-Million-Valuation-Crypto-Currency-and-A-New-Era-of-Human-Cooperation ), also pays attention (towards the end) to similar self-destructive effects in a fiat, inflationary currency system.
In order a currency system to be good its currents must suck in wealth from the without and to grow organically, not just to move mass from the bottom to the top and to destabilize the boat ...

One thing I have learned today is that, in order to be a good witness, you need to practice Tai Chi. Good!👌

·

It took five days but someone finally got it. Take several seats.

and value and efficiency of any democracy and voting is a function of the cost of a cast vote. Vote is by definition == ''informed vote''. selling or automation of voting is elimination of the 'informed' essential component. uninformed == non-voting, categorially.

Actually I have been wanting to ask because many of my peers are using smartsteem and smartmarket. Are those for selling and buying votes.

I came across one post regarding #nobidbots and out of a sudden I repented and totally agree with what they say about not using bidbots.

I have not been using for some time (except the recent post I crowd fund for my brother using postpromoter).

I am tied in between too. My conscience is telling me using bidbots or vote-trading will cause STEEM to be in ICU and no one attend. But many are using it seems tolerable or good for future. But I hvnt started using smartsteem or smartmarket.

Please shed some light. I am still learning about STEEM blockchain.

Thank you for this series of "But, but, but". ✌🙂

My husband and I invested in Steem. What SP we have, it's mostly paid for by our savings as investment. So far, it's not looking good. But we're hanging in there because we believe in the potential of this platform. As investors, we have a great incentive in fighting abuse.

Abuse

The spammers grow daily, multi-account holders are all over the place, you submit a new post and here comes 30 new followers that you don't want! That said, a few good things have happened recently with the irredeemables and Steemit Inc taking away their delegated SP to these irredeemable accounts. But just the number of irredeemable accounts accepted is astonishing - 17k initially from what @sneak committed in GitHub.

We were involved through @steemflagrewards by @anthonyadavisii fighting some of these everyday irredeemable abusers. Being part of steemflagrewards and us being connected to steemcleaners - we see all kinds of crazy abuses daily. From large account holders to new accounts. My question would be who hurts Steemit more by abuse - a whale circle-jerking and self voting or a new user spamming comments?

Downvote incentives

On the downvote incentives, I kind of agree too. We use some of our SP to downvote abuse and use the rest in upvoting quality content. We really don't like to downvote but we're the kind of people who see trash, pick them up and throw them to the garbage. We don't like it but we do it anyway since no one seems to care. Like @dwinblood, we don't downvote for disagreeing, there's a better way to show disagreement than downvoting. The necessary downvotes are reserved to the abusers - copy/pasters, plagiarizers, spammers, scammers, phishers and the accounts that think it's ok to threaten others with physical violence.

How difficult is it to integrate a plagiarism tool within the posting process? Like so, before the post is accepted it was ran through plagiarism software but there would have to be a way to appeal because of folks like us who have a YT channel/blog and we're moving our content here.

What kind of downvote incentives will enable us to actually fight abusers but not allow abusers to abuse more? We can't think of a solution for it that doesn't require some kind of moderator. And who would that be and would they do the same thing to everyone? People will favor their friends even when their friends are wrong. So this is a difficult task to accomplish. Who is going to set the guidelines for what abuse is and who is going to define those types of abuse so everyone has access to it in their own language.

Language Barriers

Another problem we're having in fighting abuse is the language barrier. We have many Germans, Polish, Chinese, Turkish but not any Spanish or any other languages helping us fight abuse. If we want to help somebody and teach them that copy/paste is not ok, we have to be able to communicate with them. This is a big issue on the platform.

How difficult would it be to integrate a multi-lingual TOS with definitions of unaccepted behavior included?

There is a lot of activity trying to bring new accounts on the platform. Many of these new users languages are not supported here. Wouldn't it be wise to support the language first then promote amongst that demographic?

Increased curation percentage

I would say yes on 50% curation rewards and that would motivate many who are selling votes now to curate. I'm manually curating now, somewhat auto-curating using SteemAuto because I actually read the posts of the people I support.

Let me know your thoughts on my thoughts :) And by the way, thanks for this great post. I hope we can get all these issues resolved.

It's finally time to go and sleep buttnaked after jiggling my beautiful butt a little and save the platform, I'm so tired jeez.

·

is that butt up for a bid? i have SBD ;) No lie.

·
·

I jiggle only for Kevin, but I'm flattered to hear that other people appreciate it too :)

·
·
·

Big time. I pray Kevin will not outbid me for your butt tho

·
·
·
·

He loves me not because of butts, even though they are fabulous.
Yeah, for some people is only left to pray...

The second lowest common denominator activity is curation (smallest unit of work imaginable).

I guess it depends on how you curate. I curate a music contest called Steemit Open Mic and can assure you it is not the least amount of work possible. It's turned into my full-time job and I'm working my ass off to build a huge, engaging community of musicians on the Steem blockchain. About 8-hours and many days more to do so.

~50% curation rewards.

Can you clarify on this? Are you proposing reducing curation rewards by 50%?

Seeing how I do not upvote myself at all and make my rewards upvoting others and building community engagement, that would not be something I could get behind.

However, all your other points I'm onboard with.

·

I guess it depends on how you curate. I curate a music contest called Steemit Open Mic and can assure you it is not the least amount of work possible. It's turned into my full time job and I'm working my ass of to build a huge, engaging community of musicians on the Steem blockchain. About 8-hours and many days more to do so.

There are only two kinds of voting effects: one is curation, another is self-voting (and trading, which is the same). Just saying curation has at least a minimum amount of work, the other does not have this. There's no way to properly measure hence the statement.

~50% curation rewards is not reduction, it's increase from the current 25%.

·
·

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I'm all for every one of your points.

"Plus, if the argument is the rich will only get richer.. what about Steem's current economy that is making the laziest workers richer than the hardworkers? Don't even need to any hard data and statistics for this. Just use the platform and look around yourself." If Steemit can solve this problem, that secret should be shared with the world to solve it everywhere! Ufff so many good points here, but I guess I ended up feeling informed yet depressed :( Not your fault of course, but just the society we live in.

STEEM could change the world more than any other blockchain! I can't wait to see what happens!!

I just hope @kevinwong that your proposals will not fall into deaf ears especially when money is involved. The question remains, how some people will find away around to curve the new rules is yet to be seen, or felt.

·

It'll happen, but at least we can expect curation to improve. Nothing can be worse than the current econs, imo..

Dead accounts and circle votes are also a major drain on real content creators, human beings I mean, not being the judge of what is awful or worthy of being solid content. The curve in SP delegation to garbage accounts would be great. Have a downward multiple based off of the SP that is used to power up a new account that is vested, like a multiple of 3 for second month on the platform, multiple of 2 third month, and a max of 5.2SP to fall by 0.1 weekly if that difference doesn't match 15. There are garbage spam accounts that are being churned and being paid for by the community. Why not incentivize every single account as well to vest as much SP as they can right away so the community does not have to prop their account up while they may or may not even be doing anything? Plus it makes these people that are growing and interacting right away an incentive to work with them as they are more highly valued than the average user for at least a short time, and may also incentivize them to not fall in SP and may lean them toward leasing SP in keeping this up, or even purchasing Steem via fiat, God forbid, lol. Great post once again and addressing the problems and offering a forum for the crazies like me to sound off their rants.

You're right sir, Bidbots and vote trading are cancerous to steemit economy the one whose reach in this platform become more richer by selling their votes plus getting the curation rewards, and the one who has more money to buy votes gets the chance of getting higher upvotes. But how about the newbies or future steemians who wants to make a high quality content who will curate their contents if most of the voting power spread all over the bidbots

·

It is clear that all Steemers are created equal, but some are more equal than others!

·

But how about the newbies or future steemians who wants to make a high quality content who will curate their contents if most of the voting power spread all over the bidbots

dont worry. a bot will answer this.

I agree with you Kevin, since HF19 is running for almost a year now, we are all aware of its pros and cons. Why don't we just give the modest superlinear a try, it should work out in my opinion.

I really don't have the answers to the various ills of Steemit, but it's good to have the discussions before it really takes off. I don't even know if vote selling will scale to tens or hundreds of millions of users. I guess it could if they all decide to delegate to them. This is all an experiment with new business models.

·

It's a good point. I hope there will be SP left to delegate to all the projects that grow the network, @steemhunt one in mind at present.

It would be sad if something else came along and failed to get the SP (although perhaps Steemit inc would do the honors like with dtube and utopian) because everyone was delegated out to bots.

Maybe when this time comes the big players will pull some out of the bots for the sake of the blockchain, who knows.

·
·

I'm interested to see what steemit do with all their steem. They've said they would be distributing it somehow

·
·
·

I'm hopeful it will be released steadily and carefully at the right time, too much to soon may not be a good plan but perhaps there will be some going to the communities that are working well.

·
·
·
·

I think there is a big potential that they will do a partial clawback of what is delegated to some of the apps, maybe leaving more for those who have been developing their apps the most and using their delegations efficiently, and then a distribution to some of the fastest growing/strongest communities that pop up to spur interest in the user-side of things after the apps have been given some time to mature. I do not think they want the apps to collapse completely in the absence of their delegations, however, because undoubtedly many users and communities will continue to rely on their use.

·
·
·
·
·

Yes this makes sense and could well happen once the apps have 'enough' SP to adequately reward on their own.

I agree with the communities aspect - much development work has seemingly gone into this, and so it would make sense to give it a 'push'.

Cheers

·
·
·
·
·
·

Yeah, exactly what I was thinking.

You just got one wild comment section after this post :)). Speaking for myself, I'm all about incentivizing work which is not really happening at the moment.

When i joined nearly 2 years ago i was told keep writing, voting and messaging it will get better. That's what i did nearly everyday i still try hard but its so slow even for me after 2 years it must be hell for newbies.

·

bot to bot economy, insentivised towards 'optimization' quickly kicks out the 'guests' to be served.

·

it must be hell for newbies.

delete the "must" and that statement becomes gold.

·
·

I still feel like a newbie so I am with you on that :)

I think our current system is fine and eventually we will get more and better investors and more and better users.

There will always be people who want to game the system when votes are worth money.

·
  ·  3년 전

You contradict, or dont want to see the realities, or simply dont look at what happens on the Steem blockchain. For more than 10 months I'm curating the Steem blockchain, seeing all the posts (well, title, image, and first sentence) of some of the tags like #music, and open at least 100 posts every single day. What I see is those users who start out at Steemit writing great articles, stop writing them, or become inactive. I also see the amount of spamming and copy/paste increasing by the day. In parallel, more and more users, even those with good intentions, are joining the game of selling and buying votes.

Your thought on eventually all will be good; How do you see this happening when users who try to do good, either stop their activities or join the gaming of the system?

·
·

This guys search is over. He's found a bidbot to up-vote all his comments with and he's happy.

·
·
·
  ·  3년 전

It's in the name hahaha

·
·
·
·

lol

·

Yeah, but as far as I get it, what Kevin advocates is 'alignment of incentives' so even such phenomena like votes trading, buttbots ... growth to pump growth of the value of the system - for the rich AND the poor, be it slower for the later. All the donkeys to pull into one direction - the biggest and the smallest.

·
·

I think he wants a 50-50 program. I doubt that would get rid of the bots and might even make the bots more lucrative than they are now. Also we do need content. We already have a bunch of autovoters with only the 25% program.
You might want to sign up for @dustweeper.

Frankly speaking @kevinwong bro - I won't expect that I will be filthy rich with Steem, but as long as I can share my knowledge and expertise with other Steemians - I would be very happy :)

It takes a very interesting post to sustain my attention in reading a very long post. But your article speaks so much on the current state of Steemit right now. I was never a fan of bid bots but there was a time that I look up on the trending, new hot categories and I see high payouts because of vote buying. Paying bots to do the job. And people have this mentality that majority are doing it so why not do it too? So I tried in 3 or 4 of my articles but reality sink in I am just fooling myself. It is cheating! I feel better with less upvote than paying bots to upvote my post.

Self voting, everybody is guilty of this. I hope somebody out there read/hear/consider your proposal. I am not active on Steemit nowadays because of full time job but I can see the flaws of the system and it is a sad fact that we are allowing this to happen.

I know it might not be fair for me to say this, but top witnesses literally only have one job other than maintaining witness nodes: Make Steem Better.

I really hope that people take the time to read this. Everyone wants steemit to be successful now, but what is important is that steem stays successful for the long haul. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

  1. N to 1.3 is so obviously better.
  2. Increasing shorting incentives of course
  3. I think curation should be raised to 100 pct. writers just get #1 curation slot on all their post automatically and get the first 30min curation. Coupled with n to 1.3 this will reduce rewards to self voting
  4. communities makes curation so much easier . We know finding good material is too hard, that’s why we use bots! Give us some easy curation tools

Thank you for this thoughtful contribution to the discussion. I'm going to have to google linear/superlinear in this context, lol, but you made a lot of good points that I did follow even without that. Side note: yay Crash Course!
Have you been following the discussion about witnesses having one foot in Steemit and one in EOS?

·

they said conflict of interest does not exist in their dictionary.

That was a long post, and a lot of comments to read. I was very happy to see the mention of @dustsweeper. I think @kevinwong, if you have not looked at that program, you should. It could be used as an example for your reward distribution sort of. @dustsweeper sort of eliminates the dust vote. The dust level vote only affects the new user, not any one else. By eliminating the dust vote, the vote giver receives their curation reward for voting, the vote receiver receives the intended reward from the vote giver, and @dustsweeper receives a small reward also to reinvest in the content creators of steemit.
Does it work? Yes. Is it effective? Yes. Pick any set of two weeks from my account prior to may 1st, look at the number of vote rewards I received. Then compare that to any two weeks after May 15th, you will be as amazed as I was at the increased amount of rewards due to @dustsweeper.

Uh damn nice post. Damn nice. Place holder comment. Ima get right on this when i get home. ;)
Still need to read the comment section.

Thanks for the amazing writeup. I whole heartedly agree that the economic engine is broken.

Unfortunately, since witnesses and whales are benefiting from the broken system, I'm worried they will be slow to make changes, if they make changes at all.

Alternatively, we may just need a new voting bloc of witnesses....

Well, I quite agree with some of your proposed changes but what is the guarantee that it will be implemented? And if implemented, how sure are we that it's still gonna work out?

Just like you rightly said 👇

Discussions can only be effective when participants are able to scope out their thoughts and work in the same wavelength, so to speak.

So, it is ours to make these decisions, they may or may not be subject to approval.... Or implemented

Hello @kevingwong

I quite agree in most of what you said but not in all cases. The current system, sure, isn't working. For one thing linear equality isn't right for this system at all. It limits the capacity of curating Steemians to cover a large number of people daily. But I guess 50% curation is not friendly to minnows and those still struggling to find footing within the community.

All the same, lots of healthy revelations and worthy recommendations.

@eurogee of @euronation and @steemstem communities

vision? I know you do not need an answer from a low reputation person like me. But I try to say my vision to you. vision: I want to grow my friends in a small community that I coach, so they are not neglected in this platform. and the rich should help the poor, not the rich get rich, and hopefully the police do not create criminals to be caught by themselves.

What you say is very appropriate because your prediction about all is reality in the field. Very sharp but true.

I agree with you, but honestly, it's almost impossible to grow your account without the help of bid bots. Even with bots, it's REALLY hard and slow to get anywhere. Unless one invests a lot of liquid crypto of their own, it's practically impossible in my opinion. Or super slow..

·

you can not do anything with bid-bots. nothing. check the shitposts that make it to the trending page by means of a bot-push. does anyone not notice how lonely they are?

Proposed changes have no merit. The existing system is good enough. Pls consider that anybody who has ability to write good content can buy the visibility for free from bid-bots as it is paid back in a week time. No other platform provide this opportunity to however great content creator one is.

Bid-bots are the best thing on the platform.

And flags are the worsts things and need to go. We need to come out of the mentality that my content and views are good than of others.

No one would follow a user who does not have any meaningful thing to say to his followers thereby discouraged to either improve or rest in peace.

Let us come out of policing mentality.

And with SMT all who thinks differently can design their own reward schemes to experiment. If any of that is more successful then we all will follow and support that driven by simple economics for individual and group.

So all in all no need to change.

·

only if someone (@dan i see you) wasn't taking note of this shit show and planning on milking the experience to build a platform that has the prospect of running on a more "valuable" blockchain. Yeah, it will be hard to scoop a million folks onto the new machine but not as hard as you may think if by then, Ned and his team somehow manage not to get people being here for more than just the money, but just plain wanting something different from Facebook, Twitter and Medium. Steem Inc are taking for granted the pioneer-effect a two-year old first-among-equals site is giving them.

as a new user in steemit i cannot understand all of your writing. i made friend with some people including paula to learn more about this platform. Looking at your last words about expected benefits i hope those things will happen soon. Hopefully i don't make any wrong on this comment.

Vote buying is the Citizens United decision of the blockchain world. I personally don't think this will be fixed from inside. It's going to require a competing blockchain. It's in the interest of those running the platform to keep this going as long as they're the only game in town.

So the only real option is what bitcoin did to the banks - provide another option. New social media blockchains will come forward to challenge the Steem blockchain if this continues. When real competition threatens the whales gravy train on this platform will they see the light? Or will it be too late?

  ·  3년 전

Oh my God! What an article! Bid-bots, self voting etc are the biggest problem of this platform. Self voting is not bad till someone refuse to share his earnings with others. In my view self vote should be regulated. A person should not vote his post more than two occasions on a single day. Also, self voting on comments should not be allowed.
Bid-bots are problem but they are also the tool of helping new users. Without their help a new user's post cannot be visible to the community. Apart from this, they also increase the reputation score of a new user. This is a fact which cannot be denied. But, bid-bots are the tools by which owner of them are amassing a huge wealth, while the content creator are not always in profit. Bid-bots receive payout, in the form of bid, much before the payout time of seven days. They also receive curation reward in addition to that. Also they can upvote in every 2 and half hours, 24x7, which a human being cannot do. Their voting is similar to circle jerking in which a group upvotes each other. Hence, a restriction should be imposed on them. It can be made that no person should be able to get more than 100$ worth of upvotes by bid-bots. If a post receive voting worth more than 100$ and 90% of that is from bots, then the payout should be restricted to 100$ only. Also, bid-bots should not be allowed to receive curation reward.
There are many things which can be done. Your proposal are quite sound and should be taken seriously by the developers. Let us make Steem a successful platform where everyone will have equal chance, subject to his/her contribution.

·

In my view self vote should be regulated. A person should not vote his post more than two occasions on a single day. Also, self voting on comments should not be allowed.

Under the current model this will not work as a user (or indeed a witness) can just create alt. accounts and work around this.

·
·
  ·  3년 전

Dear brother! Do you think multiple accounts are not being operated at this time? Many users have multiple accounts. They upvote in a circle and maximising their chances of earning. When an account is restricted to self vote, then that person will have to open another account or many more account for the same thing. Handling so many accounts will not be an easier thing for him.

Firstly i saw steemit as

"Oh hey, Ez money"

now i see steemit as

"oh nice, facebook where you get money"

I'm sorry but we can all admit that the money you get for posting is in everyones minds.
unless you own a fken multibillion dollar company

the rich will definitely get richer but creative content creator has a once in a life time opportunity to earn something out which they had never achieved :)

I can see the amount of work, you have put into this post. It seems you have thought a great deal about this. There is defenetly something to think about and consider into the futere. Personaly I think of steemit as a free market, when you good at something you succeed if not you have to make progres to get better. Sadly on Steemit there are high-quality with are not appreciated as the should, and yes this is how the free market works. Personaly I think quality contets can make a difrence but it takes time, and hard work. I also think it is great that the are people who want to help the platform, and are not here for the money, it makes me feel like the platform have an actual change to succed.

·

Personaly I think quality contets can make a difrence but it takes time, and hard work

right now, only sexy butts can give you the "illusion" of such. not necessarily time nor hardwork. hence lies the problem.

·
·

harsh words, but I m an optimist, we will get there

Without change Steem will surely not reach its potential. What I would like to hear from someone is how you would expect a newbie to stay on Steemit when joining now?

·

Without investing, it will take a fresh angle with regards to content, but I do think it is still possible.

Aim your content at @curie, @utopian-io, @dtube, @steemhunt, @steemstem, @dlive - These are the 'community' accounts that do not care what you have invested.

·
·

Aim your content at @curie, @utopian-io, @dtube, @steemhunt, @steemstem, @dlive

True and good but can be very depressing. Speaking only from experience with Curie. I have seen very talented folks stop blogging despite eating big fat curie loves more than once. Still, curie and its folks still remain the only torch in the dark.

·
·
·

Bit of a shame that. The @curie vote should be enough fuel to keep them going for a while at least, it's sad to see the rewards leave the platform so soon.

I think there will be more community hubs appearing in the future, and we will need them for sure.

·
·
·
·

The Curie vote doesn't give majority of them enough fuel. Especially for writers. You always have that feeling of saving your work for better days, contests or adsactly's steemshorts and its likes. Community votes are bringing back the momentum tho.

Great post. If we're not moving ahead briskly we are falling behind colossally !!

Peace

Bidbots take away the networking aspect from steemit, people nowadays don't need to look at a post or a content and can get their own post upvoted with a percentage of return on top.

If you kill the networking aspect on a social media platform, you are taking away its very function and therefore it I bound to be killed from the inside.

·

even with the bidbots, it is hard to imagine that "majority" of the users are not miserable.

I'm beginning to think the huge monthly salary top witnesses are getting is working against the best interest of the platform. None of these guys are feeling the urgency to fix the damn pothole everybody has been complaining about.

There is nothing they can do.
Steem is inherently 100% capitalistic, and as a result you get 100% capitalistic results.
As long as you can buy/sell votes, and as long as voting changes payout, you will get capital accumulation by "doing nothing".

·

and that will ensure the long term success of this platform?

·
·

What that? The system like it is?

I'm 60% on no. I think the platform has a 60% chance to be discontinued/even lesss important then now in 10 years time.

This post is way too complicated to understand it while coming down from a hell of a Mescaline trip, I believe that the price of Steem will rise as soon as the community starts getting bigger with time! Cryptocurrencies are the future... :D

Really appreciate you putting so much thought into this and pushing this issue please continue to do so. Here is a cut and past of the comment I just left on your other post that also fits the content of this post. I would not want it to get overlooked, especially with a hopeful minnow request ;) So I'm copying it below to this fresh post here. Thank you Kevin for staying on top of this.

............................................................................................

Hey Kevin. Thank you for addressing these issues. I think it's vital that who ever is most in charge makes the necessary changes to keep corrupt practices to a minimum. I'm just a small time travel blogger trying to eek out a living salary from the rewards pool.

Since the price of steem took off in late December last year I've had no problem doing so. But now with the price down it's putting the squeeze on. I think these problems you mention are the number one stumbling block from allowing steemit to go main streem.

People want a system that they can trust, when they see others raping the system, it's not good for anything including driving investors away pushing the price down, and travel bloggers and others in my position suffer greatly.

And on that note, I am thrilled to be here and steemit has been greatly rewarding for me in many ways. In fact I just passed 2,000 followers. Maybe that is the mark that puts me on a list every blogger wants to be on, that Kevin Wong auto voter list! You are a big player and I've paid my dues, hate to be so blunt but any support you can throw my way would be greatly appreciated.

So now how many steem to get a massage in Thailand? Unfortunately we are at about two. But hopefully that changes soon. Thank you for all that you do and for the support you have given me thus far.

From Glens Falls New York -Dan "World Travel Pro!"

RE: 25% more to content curators?

I think I follow your logic and although this might discourage people from using bid bots like you did on this post, I can’t help but wonder if you’ve considered some of the ramifications that a move like this would have.

Content creators for example might see it as an additional 25% in tax being levied on their labor. It may have the desired effect of encouraging more people to curate. However, it may also have the undesired effect of people engaging in rampant self-upvoting to cover the gains lossed on the content that they produce.

This is especially true for bid bot owners if your macroeconomics works and it kills their business model. They’ll be scrambling for a solution in order to maintain profits and they’ll probably resort to self upvoting their own content or comments. They won’t receive as much, but they’ll still get rewards. Or they might engage in reciprocal upvoting via steemauto.

Also, I’m sure business minded curators will probably start curating the bot owners content or comments so they can get a little bit of that 50% chunk of change. The way I see it former bid bot owners will have their content trending, quality or not after this change has been implemented. Maybe there is something I’m missing but it seems like this might not work.

As I understand it good ideas do not require force. If you force the bid bot operators out of business by forcing the content creators to pay more in tax it’s definitely going to change the dynamic. I just don’t know if that change will be a positive one. I’d like to propose an alternative solution that I’ve dubbed the 'inverted broken window theory' of Steemit economics.

"The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society." - Wikipedia

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Daniel Webster

I'm glad you have been speaking up about the reward system. Something needs to change, and lots of great discussion have been happening on your blog because of it! :) Keep it up! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  ·  3년 전

Sorry guys, I think that you are talking about something what is not so important as you think.
so-called value content it's just subjective
it is honest Answer.
seriously it was a platform for giving money for everyone,not just miners or proof of stake holders, not for what is value content or NADA value
those who are bigger just want more benefits for bigger players,but you forget that pool is for all Not only for "whales"
by the way I made many time valueable full 5,000 article and got cents so system reward pool never wasn't justice but subjective and filtered by bigger whales perspective...it is not Definition of valuable content.

Hi, @kevinwong!Nice to meet you. I read your great idea in this writing and I also followed your hot discussion with other successful steemians here. I got many things from the discussion. I just realized that how newbie like me must learn much on how to use this platform for earning, cause so far I just read and write for making friends and finding good relation with people around the world. Following you and reading yours is like I found such illumination about what happen here in steemit. Hopefully I don't bother you all with this comment. Thanks a lot.

nice view man! and we need more people to be brave like you and speak out.........

I have to read your post carefully to understand the proposal you are offering. steem-based economic improvement does require seriousness in making posts and curation of the post. I admit that I am one of those people who have not been able to make good posts. moreover we will argue about the good word. however, I must say thank you for being a steemian that focuses on providing guidance to steemit account holders. many steemian in Indonesia that make you as role model or idol. because you are one of those people who always offer the best activation concept in steemit.

We can reduce the usage of bots naturally by doing better vote distribution. Most people earn 0$ on their posts and that's why they use bots.

What if we have like 10 curators assigned for every topic/hashtag and they are given some Steem Power delegation by Steemit inc.?

They will regularly check the posts that are underpaid in that tag and of good quality and start curating.

As far as I know, Curie has been doing this, right? But, we need more players who are willing to do it.

For eg: I'm a relatively active user and post motorcycling content. I and 9 others who are willing to spend time curating, who regularly post regarding that topic will be well versed in it and hence can do the regular curation of posts in that #tag.

Currently people get 0$ on motorcycling posts and hence have to resort to vote buying. If they start receiving votes from curators, they might stop depending on bots and try to post higher quality stuff, because we would be voting based on the quality. Higher quality = Higher % Vote.

Currently people get 0$ on motorcycling posts and hence have to resort to vote buying. If they start receiving votes from curators, they might stop depending on bots and try to post higher quality stuff, because we would be voting based on the quality. Higher quality = Higher % Vote.

What's your opinion on this idea?

I agree that curation rewards should be improved in order to encourage the projects and curators who carry out that work.

One of the problems I've seen that has caused the increased use of bid bots by the minnows is the centralization of content curatorship, for example, in the Spanish-speaking community the only curatorship that makes a considerable difference is the one that the Cervantes project carry out, but it is not capable of reaching everyone, and there are always good authors who go unnoticed.

I've seen good authors starting to use the bid bots because they dont get attention and upvotes. I know that this problem has always existed, but I believe that it could be solved if a large part of the delegations of steem power were directed to curation projects instead of bid bots.

Those who are reading this message should consider delegating Steem Power to the Celf project.


Steem-powered Art and Culture. Curation project and digital magazine working for the artistic community on and outside Steem. @celfmagazine

Our main objective is to facilitate the adoption of the Steemit social network and the Steem blockchain by the artistic community and provide an ecosystem that allows the construction of a different paradigm in support of their development, that responds to the need to transcend according to the artist's purposes.

We are not a project of charity or social aid, we want to create retention of excellent creators and curators on Steem through the "proof of work", and our priority now is to build our own capital through the STEEM power up.

We will avoid at all costs to cash out unless it is to fund activities or initiatives that can add value to the Steem blockchain.

What will be upvoted

  • Plastic arts and Visual Arts
  • Music
  • Literature
  • Performing arts

What will NOT be upvoted

  • Plagiarism
  • Articles that have nothing to do with art

If you want to delegate Steem Power you can get us at https://solicitingpower.com

We are no longer focused on Latin America, we are partnering with people around the world who share our vision to support art and culture on Steem.

Steem is moving towards blackhole instead of moon....i these bidbots and voting system is responsible for it...things must be changed before its too late..

·

Tau promises to spear us from the illths of voting whatsoever. https://steemit.com/@karov

Totally agree with you about the dysfunctional economics on Steemit @kevinwong I upped and resteemed that post, it was awesome and so is this one! I am also in total agreement with the proposed changes. Why is nothing being done to fix these issues yet!? Do "They" Not even care or realize there is a huge problem !? Falling asleep my friend, just home from the graveyard shift, but your Proposed Changes and Benefits definitely need looking at more closely by the Devs. Keep up the great work! upped earlier from Auto now resteemed!👍👍👍😀

Hola a todos... interesantes las respuestas que he leido.. mis respetos para todos los grandes en influencia. Quizas todos tngan razón en lo que dicen, yo que a penas iicie en Abril de este año 2008, me siento identificada con sus comentarios, más sin embargo siento que que me ha ido muy bien aunque no he recibido votaciones cuando creo que el post lo merece. Igual continúo y continuaré aquí, agradezco a todos uds (@kevinwong @lukestokes @brianphobos a todos con alto poder que viven ayudándonos a crecer cada día.

Hello Kevin, I have been a very crazy follower of your content and today i think i could use a but help from you. Lately on I have not been getting the return of my efforts, its a bit frustrating. I put out todays post and I humbly request you to have a look and if you think its worth sharing with your follower, then please do share it with your followers. Thanking you in advance as always.
https://busy.org/@talhajaved8/accepting-a-new-challenge-in-life-sniper-elite-3-in-under-40-hours

Very detailed and convincing post @kevingwong. I hope your voice is heard by others. Good to see several Tai Che students here at Steemit. You did not mention their names?

[Off topic] Have you done any recent analysis of the crypto market? If yes, please share the post/video link.

Resteemed!

Be the voice!

buenas soy venezolano,quiero felicitar por tan detallado trabajo, espero contar con su contribucion en mis post, espero contar con su visita y apoyo, mil gracias

Thanks for the information sir.

  ·