Upvoteshares | Rule Change Proposals
All the proposals below are just ideas to improve things and keep everything fair in line with the program. I would love to get feedback and suggestions on them in the comments and feel free to speak your mind. If anything, I'm always open to facts, numbers and good reasoning.
Proposal 1 : Curation Reward Dividend Payouts
This project was once started to improve on some of the models of other 'support programs' (See Post) by putting it's shareholders first. The 10x self-upvote number has always been the big reference when talking about returns and this will continue to be the case. The upvotes used to be set at minute 20 on the 30-minute voting window and minute 12 when this was changed to the 15-minute window which took ~20% curation rewards. Now with the 50/50 reward split things have changed drastically. It is by no means the intention of the program to take 50% of the rewards even though the upvotes active shareholders get after curation are still above the 10x reference.
So I would like to introduce curation reward dividend payouts giving part of the curation rewards back to the shareholders. Desciding who gets how much in a 100% correct way can get quite complicated because curation rewards depend on the size of the upvote and how much votes come in afterward along with the fact that I have a limited amount of time.
This is what curation reward dividends would look like when Level 18 is ready to open up...
All curation rewards form inactive reserved shares along with the ones from smaller shareholders will go to those that have 11 shares or more with each share being worth a tiny bit more. 11 Shares in Level 18 are worth 47.08 STEEM (11x4.28) and would give 0.343 STEEM as curation rewards which is 0.73% for that level. This is the percentage when counting the current share price, so for those that have been involved for a longer time it will be more because they got in at cheaper prices and the growth of the account is added to their returns. The Dividends increase with 0.3 Steem each level which will most likely not be enough to keep it fair as the project grows so I might increase them doing a tiny systematic power down once we are above level 20.
|11 Shares||47.08 STEEM||0.0312 STEEM||0.73%|
|100 Shares||428 STEEM||0.0366 STEEM||0.86%|
The reason smaller shareholders would not get curation dividends is that the bigger accounts help them get higher returns as all unused upvotes are returned to active shareholders and because It will simply be too much work for me. Getting more shares brings all previous shares into a higher multiplier level in a way I believe is quite balanced.
Proposal 2 : Extra Account Safety Measures
With the model this project uses, all shares represent ownership in the account and the STEEM that was put in by Shareholders remains in their ownership. If the project would ever come to an end, there would be a power down and everyone can claim their Steem and have it returned to them. This brings along a potential flaw of having to trust I will not run away with it as outlined in the Terms and Conditions. One other situation that could possibly happen is for me to basically drop dead. If this were to happen right now, the upvotes would continue for as long as steemauto is operational but that's about it.
The most practical solution I see is to Share both the Private Posting and Private Active Key with @roleerob who I consider highly trustworthy. He has reached 100 Shares in the account and showed major support to this project being one of the reasons everyone has been getting excellent returns. This would exponentially increase the safety of everyone's funds as the chance of both of us dropping dead is really small..
Proposal 3 : Quality Control (Actifit)
The original Terms & Conditions everyone who gets shares agreed-upon stay this...
I get that the entire Steem crypto blogging reward model is quite broken and very much pushes people toward "low effort vote farming" since quality is not a factor that makes all that much of a difference earnings wise. It has never been my intention to overly police the place and only once I was close to making an intervention when the drugwars spam post were a thing which got pushed off the platform.
Currently, Actifit posts who all have the same title and cover image are a plague on the platform and more shareholders have been using those as an easy way to make a daily post and farm votes. I don't claim all posts should be just about quality, but when it literally takes less than a minute to transform a complete shitpost to something that at least looks unique I don't think it's too much to put this as a minimum standard.
My proposal would be that Actifit is allowed if:
- It has a different cover image showing on the front page.
- It has a different post title compared to the standardized form.
I made a post with 35 ready-to-go cover images that can be used including the free image source link. See Free Actifit Thumbnail Image Collection and might do another one in the near future.
Proposal 4: Level Transition Changes
For the last 17 Levels, I've been extremely consistent when it comes down to the opening, closing and completing of each level. While I plan to continue this in the future, I will make some changes going forward that will make it less time-consuming for me. At the start, it was hard to get in so I added a maximum number of shares that could be gotten in a single level to give everyone a chance. This made things fair but also brought about a lot of hassle. Since many are starting to reach the number of shares they aimed for I will allow anyone who wants to get in as many shares that are available again from now on.