RE: Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem

다음에 대한 하나의 댓글을 보고 있습니다 :

Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem

4년 전

I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the order book. At any given time it isn't hard to sell $400 worth of crypto at close to the market price (almost any crypto). If I earn $400 worth of rewards that I can sell it is very unclear what mechanism exists which would cause my stake to devalue by $400, and there probably isn't one. If it is just general inflation, then it doesn't much matter whether whether I earn the $400 or someone else does, but my personal wealth would prefer that I do, obviously.

this situation progress, SP use would be reduced to witness voting exclusively

No. In addition add: bandwidth, store of value, plus STEEM and SBD (both interchangable with SP to some degree) can be used a means of exchange. As bandwidth, SP may be valuable for other applications such as SMTs, Steem Monsters, censorship resistant accountable social platform, etc. Speculation about future value of these or other applications may impute a significant current value.

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

If I earn $400 worth of rewards that I can sell it is very unclear what mechanism exists which would cause my stake to devalue by $400, and there probably isn't one.

If someone increased their Steem stake by 1% every day but the price of Steem goes down by 2% every day then this person didn't make any money in fiat/btc/eth term. Their wealth has decreased.

How much money someone makes is dependant on the demand.

The demand can't be taken for granted.

SP may be valuable for other applications such as SMTs, Steem Monsters, censorship resistant accountable social platform, etc.

True. I agree.

·

If someone increased their Steem stake by 1% every day but the price of Steem goes down by 2% every day then this person didn't make any money in fiat/btc/eth term. Their wealth has decreased.

And if they don't increase their wealth by 1% per day and the value of Steem decreases by 2% per day, then their wealth has decreased even more. Furthermore no stakeholders expect this to happen because anyone who did would have sold and would no longer be a stakeholder.

Again, there is no mechanism by which one individual stakeholder's personal reward stream translates directly into inverse price changes. This is literally impossible because there are more than 100 stakeholders who can each increase their stake by at least 1%. It wouldn't be possible for the value to decrease by more than 100 x 1%.

The price of Steem is going to do what it will do. The individual actions of any stakeholder have, at best, a tiny influence. Therefore people can self-enrich. Therefore, the system must be designed to be robust to individual stakeholder self-enrichment. It either is or isn't robust depending on how critical you believe the reward pool function to be. This applies approximately equally to n or n^2 or any other curve.

·
·

Again, there is no mechanism by which one individual stakeholder's personal reward stream translates directly into inverse price changes.

No single one, but if all rewards are allocated through proof-of-no-brain, it devalues the system. I say devalue the system, it doesn't mean the price will go down.

What devalue the system is independent of who receive the rewards, it's dependent on the distribution mechanism and how it's valued by the investors.

The cryptocurrency space has seen its share of irrational investment, where totally worthless coin like Bitconnect had a much bigger marketcap than Steem. They ended up in flash crash.

Steem has value where Bitconnect only had a semblance of value. My point with Bitconnect is simply to illustrate that markets can be irrational but most people, most of the time try to be rational and that's what this world is based on, rationality.

·
·
·

If I should join the discussion here, Steem is like any other cryptocurrency project, if there is no demand (buyers) its dead, we can get all the formula right but our actions on the platform matters as sentiment would determine the volume coming to the platform...
If people haven't notice we have lost trading volumes from Upbit, certainly witnesses boast about dumping on the market and power down from steem accounts flooding the markets and upvoting those comments ridiculously, well we managed to successful flag the traders out of the platform, I was really disappointed to see how many witnesses supported the action of one whale who himself is dumping and earning much more.... You have to follow the reddit threads and twitter traders and see how traders view this platform, we must change sentiment, every rally is greeted with dumps, Steem cannot maintain value and some folks does not understand the system isn't robust enough to deal with the abuse...What sense if any it makes with flooding the market with Steem and SBD, traders take note of these things, people talk about it among their trading group... If we don't change sentiment and contain a few actors SMT wouldn't be enough

·
·
·

I say devalue the system, it doesn't mean the price will go down.

If the price doesn't go down, or doesn't go down enough as a direct result of the action taken, then self-voting is successful self-enrichment. The math on this is simple: If I vote myself $400, then I'm $400-X richer, where X is the amount that my stake depreciates as a result. If X < $400 (and it appears to be far, far, less than $400 in practice), then self-enrichment is the most logical, rational action to take. This is true for both n and n^2.

That is what you are missing. The incentives are misaligned which makes the system essentially broken. Both n and n^2 are broken. True they are broken in different ways.

BTW, n^2 doesn't not enforce proof-of-brain. That is the whole problem. It enforces proof-of-large-wallet. Something that enforced proof-of-brain would be great! I would be all in favor of it. (Actually I do think there is something that might: reducing the cost of downvotes.) I don't see n^2 doing that.

It isn't sufficient to argue that n is no good. You also have to make the case n^2 is indeed good, or at least that on net n^2 is better than n. The evidence for that after a year or so of experience with n^2 is far from compelling, and there is no logical case for it either: Proof of large wallet does not imply proof of brain.

Also, the white paper (and steemit blog post, etc.) argument about simple interest is wrong in the presence of downvotes, as I suggested earlier. You can always upvote yourself, but that's not enough to actually get paid! If someone else downvotes you (because your upvote does not meet their proof-of-brain standards), you are no longer guaranteed simple interest (and indeed your valuable vote power has been wasted, a potentially-worse outcome than voting for someone else and just getting the curation reward). You are forced to, at a minimum, create-and-upvote something that meets others' proof of brain standards and is not downvoted.

if all rewards are allocated through proof-of-no-brain

This theory is largely refuted after a year anyway. A lot of rewards are recovered by stakeholders via self-voting, but not all. There is still a very significant quantity of voting on merit, including when I have voted for your comments in this thread (and you for mine, and finally both us voting for others). In addition, posts with high merit such as Steem Monsters and other significant projects, get large amounts of merit votes.

So we can see that linear weighting does not reduce to simple interest in practice, and likely never will. So yet again, the theory is wrong because it does not describe how actual humans act.

What we see is might even be interpreted as evidence of stakeholders regulating the size of the reward pool in a somewhat healthy way (giving out more when there is more merit to justify the inflation, less when there is less) rather than inflating just for the purpose of inflating.

·
·
·
·

If the price doesn't go down, or doesn't go down enough as a direct result of the action taken, then self-voting is successful self-enrichment.

True. I haven't claimed the opposite. The wealth is dependent on the demand if the demand doesn't change then this factor is moot but the demand always fluctuates over time.

If X < $400 (and it appears to be far, far, less than $400 in practice), then self-enrichment is the most logical, rational action to take.

Short time this is true, but the longtime life of Steem is dependent on the market's demand over an extended period of time.

Under linear rewards, those who exclusively upvote themselves can hope to benefit from the Steem inflation minus the witness rewards. There's potential for these people to be flagged but then their potential reward would return to the reward poo,l where they will be available to anyone, including the other exclusive self-upvoters.

Currently, some exclusive self-upvoters are getting flagged every day. Those who flagged aren't getting richer and their flags are getting proportionally smaller compared to the rewards.

Under superlinear reward, @freedom could create 10 posts, occupy the whole trending page, get much more than the yearly inflation but that would decrease the demand for Steem to the point of not being the most monetary rewarding strategy.

Or @freedom could look to reward the people who will bring value to Steem and make Steem the center of attention of a growing amount of people, making Steem ever more valuable.

If any of the whales would decide to give themselves too much of the reward pool, bigger whales or combination of whales would have the power to raise their flags against those actions.

·
·
·
·
·

demand always fluctuates over time

What is important is not merely whether demand fluctuates, but whether and how much it fluctuates (or can be reasonably expected to fluctuate) as a direct result of an individual's actions. Fluctuation, in and of itself, does not tell us anything about the best actions to take. I could do something absolutely horrific qualitatively in terms of Steem's value, and Steem could still go up in value! I'm only small stakeholder, even if, relatively speaking, one of the largest. When it comes down to it, my little actions just aren't that important (and the same can even be said for @freedom, etc.)!

Short time this is true, but the longtime life of Steem is dependent on the market's demand over an extended period of time.

Long term is just the sum of a series of short terms. If you want the long term incentives to work you have to fix the short term incentives. That is a mathematical fact.

but that would decrease the demand for Steem to the point of not being the most monetary rewarding strategy

Not necessarily. We've already discussed this.

Or even if so, @freedom could easily create 100 sock puppet accounts, post cookie cutter content that appeared to be meaningful and upvote those instead.

But even if that weren't the case, @freedom is only about a 3% stakeholder (as far as we know). Whatever @freedom does even with n^2, still has limited effect on the overall value proposition (see above). The perfectly rational thing for @freedom to do is to maximize @freedom's wealth with self-enrichment, which is pretty much what @freedom has always done (first with dumb but exploitative curation bots, now with bid bots). If you don't think so, then you are arguing that someone who seems to be a pretty smart dude and objectively one of if not the most successful Steemian who turned nothing into $20+ million by behaving very smartly at every stage is and has been doing something very, very wrong. I don't think so.

My very serious suggestion to you would be to spend some time with a pencil and paper and work out some very specific scenarios in terms of hypothetical (but plausible) stake distribution and also hypothetical (but plausible) numbers on how much these individual decisions effect the overall Steem value. If you do this you will find that the way the numbers work out, it is almost impossible for self-enrichment to ever not be the best individual strategy regardless of the reward curve (for each stakeholder who isn't already almost completely disenfranchised by a heavily top-heavy weighting system).

If this has been done early on, the white paper and overall design would not have made such obvious blunders. Either no one did this, or they didn't care because the goal was to launch a coin with a compelling-sounding story to cash out on a big pump, whether or not the mechanism for what it claimed to be trying to accomplish actually worked.

·
·
·
·
·
·

What is important is not merely whether demand fluctuates, but whether and how much it fluctuates (or can be reasonably expected to fluctuate) as a direct result of an individual's actions.

Proof-of-brain is proof-of-work as @anyx beautifully put in his post "The Double Spending Problem on Steemit" . If people can fake proof-of-brain than that's problematic just like if someone can double spend on other blockchains.

This clearly affects the market. Proof-of-brain/work can be gamed on Steem.

Whatever @freedom does even with n^2, still has limited effect on the overall value proposition (see above).

I've agreed to this. It's not who does what, it's what the system allows that can be problematic. If the whole system of distribution is flawed then that clearly affect the market.

If the Steem code gave 1,000,000 SP randomly every day to some random account that would clearly mess up the market. The same is true if the code would give 1,000,000 to some privileged account.

If the numbers are smaller it simply makes it less obvious.

I've single out @freedom as he could possibly screw the market on its own but maybe it would take more than just him. People looking to maximize their wealth are the norm so they won't be lacking.

My very serious suggestion to you would be to spend some time with a pencil and paper and work out some very specific scenarios in terms of hypothetical (but plausible) stake distribution and also hypothetical (but plausible) numbers on how much these individual decisions affect the overall Steem value.

It would be interesting and I would love to see these numbers just as much as any serious Steemians.

who turned nothing into $20+ million

They turned mined Steem into fiat money and some more potential reward in the future.

Again, I'm not saying I can't be wrong.

Proof-of-brain is proof-of-work. If people can simply upvote their own posts/comments with bots, equal to infinitesimal work for the best potential rewards then we can say proof-of-brain will leach away free Steem and that's obviously not a desirable thing.

Under superlinear reward, the biggest whales can shower themselves with rewards to the point of concentrating an ever growing amount of Steem to themselves causing the free market to either act rationally and the demand for Steem will dwindle or the market will act irrationally...

Under superlinear rewards, those who have the most to lose have the power, while under linear reward those who don't engage in proof-of-brain, the exclusives self-upvoters have the advantage, just as Dan pointed out.

Evil Whales by @dan is the post I've read the most on Steem. I must have read it close to 20 times if not more. That being said, me and @dan have some diverging perspectives on some aspects of life.

One of them is that I'm of the opinion that we should avoid eating animals if possible due to the harm it cause them. To me it couldn't be more obvious.

Yet I respect Dan whole heartily and just as I could be wrong about not eating animal, Dan and I are probably wrong about many things. I'm very aware of this.

It's not obvious to support superlinear rewards for me. I do it because it's my truth. Dan even mention the social network he's working on EOS will have linear reward. I'm not exactly sure how this will work but I'll be looking with interest.

I respect your perspectives on Steem and they are clearly helping me. I'm mean it. And I mean it when I say I could be wrong...

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Proof-of-brain is proof-of-work

Maybe it is supposed to be, but in reality (currently, whether n^2 or n) it is not. That is probably the biggest part of our disconnect on this. The system needs at a minimum tweaks and at a maximum a major rework so that it does actually function like that.

(There are other issues here, like I'm not even sure what proof-of-brain being proof-of-work is supposed to accomplish. Cryptocurrencies don't increase in value simply because (proof of) useless work is performed; it takes more than that to give them value. That's kind of a story for another day though.)

Under superlinear reward, the biggest whales can shower themselves with rewards to the point of concentrating an ever growing amount of Steem to themselves causing the free market to either act rationally and the demand for Steem will dwindle ...

This is not a good thing!

If people can simply upvote their own posts/comments with bots, equal to infinitesimal work for the best potential rewards then we can say proof-of-brain will leach away free Steem and that's obviously not a desirable thing.

We know that under linear rewards the system can devolve into simple interest (ignoring downvotes, so somewhat unrealistic). I have said this before and I've never gotten an answer: How bad is that? All it means is that inflation is reduced, yet nearly the entire value proposition of the blockchain remains: People can still post and comment. They can still transact, conduct business, and build games. New members can join. There are successful blockchain projects without inflation (or without much). If Steem is one of them, how is that a big problem, or even a problem at all?

Under a 'simple interest' (actually 'reduced inflation') mode, the 'proof-of-brain' rewarding scheme is (mostly) neutered, but it was never all that effective anyway, in accomplishing much of anything. (Did it reward the best content? Did it help create a very effective system of content discovery? Did it reliably reward new unknown users with valuable contributions as a way of encouraging rapid viral growth? The answer to all of these questions is "No".)

This hardly seems catastrophic. I don't even see why reduced inflation is worse at all compared to higher inflation which gets given (under assumed 'legitimate' proof-of-brain voting) to weak contributions of questionable value.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
  ·  4년 전

Thanks for mentioning me here, fascinating conversations still happening on this post which I think is amazing.

I wanted to chip in my 2 sbdcents since you mentioned my post, what my current ideas are surrounding it.

What is interesting to note is that in my post, the conclusion that I come to is actually regardless of n^2 or linear or even anything in-between or around, it's nicely summarized in the following quote:

While the Bitcoin system is proactive in that the transaction will be rejected immediately, right now, the only system we have is retroactive. The only way to reject value going towards a double spend, is for the community to retroactively remove the value on that transaction. This is a round-about way of saying that the post must be downvoted to remove the reward. Upon this, the transaction in a sense was not rejected, but rather simply not rewarded.

I have been thinking a lot about this recently with the current situation on Steem, and I think that this is the most important facet to getting "proof of brain" to work right. I don't think you can simply change the reward distribution and hope to solve the problems, no, I think we must reject things that do not satisfy 'proof of brain'.

I have been a strong proponent of separate voting power pools for upvotes and downvotes, because this mentally removes the opportunity cost of downvoting something (as it currently 'costs' an upvote). You would have your pool of upvotes for incentivizing good behaviour, and your pool of downvotes for disincentivizing bad behaviour. They should not be mixed pools, as both are needed.

I think if people started freely downvoting these super bid-botty trash posts, economic incentives will have to find a new equilibrium. People who bid-bot garbage might very well lose out when 'proof of brain' starts working, and brainless posts are rejected -- and if they spent money and got nothing due to being downvoted and rejected, it's an even more direct influence on their behaviour.