EIP FAQ

in #steem2 years ago (edited)

EIPfaq.jpg

What are the Economic Goals ?

To get people to vote in a way that honestly reflects their own opinion of a post's appeal with as little negative side effects as possible. Honest voting is imperative for us to succeed as a content discovery and rewards social media platform.

What's the Current Problem?

The current economy is paying content indifferent voting behavior (self voting, vote selling to bid bots, etc.) 4x more than honest curation. This has resulted in an increasing number of stakeholders participating in the former over the latter over time. Some estimates have active SP participating in honest voting at lower than 25% currently. A single glance at trending shows you the gravity of the problem.

What's Being Proposed In The EIP?

The exact numbers have yet to be finalized, but we're likely gravitating towards 50% curation, 25% free downvotes and a convergent linear curve. You can read more about the curve on @vandeberg's post here.

Why Not Make One Change at a Time ?

Because every measure has negative side effects that increase as you turn up the dial. By using multiple measures which compliment each other, we can effectively minimize negative side effects while hopefully still overhaul the status quo voting behavior into one that generally reflects honest opinions on content.

Many before us have considered these measures independently. @kevinwong and I mainly contributed by being among the first to view this as a problem of optimizing economic policy - understanding how multiple measures compliment each other and anticipating a desirable set of behaviors at equilibrium while being sensitive to the extent of negative side effects. We made the recommendation of all 3 measures and their ballpark values (and received immense help from @justinw and @vandeberg for improving our initial curve) which is likely why you see our names associated with the EIP.

What Are the Negative Side Effects of Each Measure?


Curation - On paper, less money going to content creators. (At much higher levels, content creators actually get less in practice too)

Free Downvotes - Modest increase in toxicity anticipated at the recommended amount. (At extreme levels, collusive profit driven downvote cabals and edge case of rewards pool being blocked or nearly blocked)

Convergent Linear - Introduces some level of inequality at the very low end of post rewards. (At extreme level it leads to collusive 'circle jerking' and piling on, as seen under n^2)

Under our recommendations we expect the negative side effects to be moderate (no where near the extremes). We've taken great care to minimize them while hopefully retaining sufficient incentive to compel most actors to vote honestly across the entire system.

How do you Expect These Measures To Work Together to Encourage Honest Voting?

By increasing curation to 50%, we've instantly decreased the profit gap between content indifferent voting and honest voting from 4x to 2x.

A moderate amount of free downvotes is likely further required to deter dishonest voting. At 25% free downvotes and 50% curation, for every abuser, it'll take exactly TWO same sized stakeholders to bring their votes down to average (mean) curation value. That means, we'll need two good actors for each bad actor to bring their rewards down to a point where they might as well be curating honestly (roughly speaking).

Convergent Linear forces all profitable voting behavior into the light to be assessed by voters by rendering posts or comments at the very low end of payouts less profitable. Otherwise, schemes revolving around hiding self votes in spam in an effort to evade downvotes would likely take place.

But Aren't You One of the Bad Actors Traf, Ya Cunt?

There are game theoretical reasons why individual good acts are deterred under a heavily flawed economic system. I can spend $6000 a month fighting abuse with the full knowledge that at least 75% of that money is just flowing into the pockets of others doing the exact same thing.

It's just too expensive and too futile to do anything 'good' in a broken economy. Knowing this, most of us capitulate and choose to just maximize our own stake to mitigate the negative price effects of a failing platform and in the process we make it worse. This is why we desperately need the EIP. I'll likely be switching sides once that's introduced.

We don't create a set of economic rules that rely on good people to be altruistic for the system to work. We create a set of economic rules that force bad people to do good things in order to be profitable.

Also, there's no need for that kind of language.

How Do You Think The EIP Will Affect Self Voters Like Yourself?

We'd be destroyed. That's the idea. And it'll likely have a positive cascading effect.

Currently, I know it'll cost someone $200 a day to take my rewards away only to have most of it go to others just like me. So I doubt they'll bother, if they do, I doubt they'll keep it up and if they do, I can always just sell to a bunch of bid bots and be largely immune from attack. This common knowledge of both the expensive cost and futility of fighting against dishonest voting paralyses the entire system from self correcting.

Under the EIP, it'll only take slightly more than two others of similar stake to my own to kick my rewards down to the point where I'd be making more curating honestly. And because I know it doesn't cost them a cent, they'll likely not relent. So the longer I keep it up, the more money I'd be wasting for not simply choosing to curate. Therefore, rationally, I would likely just curate honestly.

Now I wouldn't be too happy with not being able to self vote while others still do, so I'll likely use my free downvotes to combat other abusers. This also frees up the downvotes that were initially used on me to fight abuse elsewhere. The idea is to get a positive cascading effect and topple the current status quo of content indifferent voting practices.

Wouldn't a Higher Curation Rate Take More Money Away From Authors?

Highly unlikely at 50%, they'll likely see an significant increase in practice. Currently, an ever increasing lion's share of rewards are just going back to stakeholders either through self voting or vote selling. Basically if we're able to get people to mostly vote honestly, 50% of a large pie is much better than 75% of next to nothing for authors, which is what they're getting right now.

What Level of Increased Toxicity are We Looking At Due to 25% Free Downvotes?

There will always be disagreement and negative feelings are unavoidable when real money is involved on a platform like this. There will certainly be some downvotes that are used for purposes other than honest and legitimate reward disagreement, and even honest downvotes are not without contention.

However, the upside is a very real possibility of overhauling this entire platform and converting it into a largely functioning content discovery and rewards platform that it was always intended to be. Think about how many communities would flourish if 100m SP worth of votes flowed honestly towards content based on their general appeal. I believe some level of toxic downvotes are a reasonable price to pay for a real chance at a working platform instead of this shit show we have going on now.

Can You Guarantee The EIP Will Work?

No, and you don't want me to. As every measure here has negative side effects the more you crank it up, there's basically a trade off between how confident one can be of success and the negative side effects we'll incur. The initial numbers would likely need to be further adjusted and optimized over time.

That being said, I personally believe we'll likely see a very impactful and positive change in voting behavior once the EIP is introduced and the dust has settled, especially if it comes with a downvote pool that can be separately delegated from upvotes.

Ultimately, if it works, it was all me, if it doesn't, it was a team effort.

When will the EIP Come?

Hopefully the very next HF alongside SPS. The dev work is minimal and will likely not delay SPS.

Wow! Did You Create the Image for this Post All By Yourself? Are You a Professional Artist?


Fuck you :p

Sort:  

traflagar is back!~!!

Percentages, numbers.. pff. Geek speak. No offense to all you geeks out there. Those numbers scare people though. "Fifty percent! This is an outrage!" They'll say. "Nobody will work for that!" They'll say.

Screenshot (504).png

Good luck with convincing me nobody wants to create content for Youtube. Google takes 45%. A small handful of people get rich, buy yachts, do cocaine, while expensive hookers feed them grapes off the vine, or something (I heard. I haven't actually been to those parties.)

So anyway, those folks fearing the fifty don't really know what they're talking about.

We all want to see some measure of success here. I'm a content producer, I know the business, and I know it well (or a least well enough to feel comfortable in my own skin, here.)

Look at youtube. Success there consists of thousands of upvotes on videos. Usually far more views than "likes" or "dislikes", but look at those votes. The video I'm watching now has over 30000 likes. That's what we're shooting for here, correct? Giving folks a reason to upvote content after consuming it? Sounds reasonable.

So if my work receives 30000 upvotes because people want to vote again, and I get a penny per vote, I'm doing better than I am now, even if all I get is a 10 percent cut.

Do I even make sense? 50%, at first, might be tough. More people willing to vote means more money though, eventually. In my mind, that's the only way it can work.

Some folks out there will end up spending thousands "donating" to their favorite streamers or content producers. They get nothing in return, monetarily. People seem to think this behavior is the way of the future. I personally think it's idiotic when we have a platform like this place. Why throw that money away like these content producers are strippers working the pole when one could simply INVEST in a platform, support their favorite content producers by voting, get a return on their initial investment, plus have the opportunity to pull out with no strings attached at any time. That's like buying a lifelong subscription to HBO, for free, plus you get paid. How is this simplicity consistently flying over so many heads? How do the professionals here have trouble cleaning up that thought and selling it? That's the future of the entertainment industry right there, in my mind, and it shouldn't be so damn hard to get it right.

BLAH! I could go on and on for days about this shit. I'm rambling, I guess. Whatever. I'll just hit post for the fuck of it. Enjoy.

50% might be a difficult number to swallow, but the economics are entirely different from ad revenue ones people are use to

Right now they're getting 75% of piss all because they're losing it all to stakers getting their vote rewards back one way or another. The EIP is offering 50% of hopefully almost the entire pie. It'll be up to us to communicate this to people so they understand.

50% of a pumpkin is more than 75% of a grape.

Haha lol . A quote i’ll probably put on my wall !

Haha when you say something on the blockchain it stays there forever, I guess this is a point in case lol. I haven’t done that yet but I definitely still should !

I'd totally vote for your wall if you did that, man.

Haha when you say something on the blockchain it stays there forever, I guess this is a point in case lol. I haven’t done that yet but I definitely still should !

I think you meant to respond to @acidyo but got me instead.

You’re right. Thanks for letting me know !

I cracked up laughing the moment I read this.

I must have been hungry when I wrote that.

On Golos ( Steem fork ) people can choose any curation percentage inside the corridor pre-set by witnesses. By now it's from 51% to 90%.
Still it didn't eliminate vote bying.

tell me a little more about them, why are people selling votes if they can just farm the 90% curation posts? is it something to do with their curation curve?

what other economic parameters do they have? free downvotes? what's their reward curve?

what's the overall economy there like?

Most of parameters there could be changed by witnesses without any hardfork.
By now the majority of top-witnesses have voted for linear rewards and zero minutes early voting penalty.
The actual consensus state can be viewed on explorer https://explorer.golos.io
My understanding why people are still bying votes is some sort of addiction to be on the Trending.
And actually it isn't always 50/90, because vitnesses votes are "split" between something like 25/75, 50/50 and 25/90, consequently the parameters can change a few times a day depending of who from the reserve witnesses is taken into the calculation.

I see

Then I disagree strongly with linear rewards and no curation auction window and full priced downvotes

I somewhat disagree with a curation slider too

Putting these all together, I'm not at all surprised at their economic failure

I don't think this economic failure have anything to do with the curation model.
And actually the failure of falling from $0.30 to $0.05 as it's the case of Golos isn't so much different to falling from $6.00 to $0.3 as it's for Steem.

That's like buying a lifelong subscription to HBO, for free, plus you get paid. How is this simplicity consistently flying over so many heads?

Love this.

This place needs more visionaries. Imagine you're sitting on the couch, enjoying your entertainment screen of choice. The device detects you're enjoying content, you've been glued to it for just the right amount of time. The device automatically upvotes, some money goes to those who produced the content. Consumers all get a piece of the pie after everything is said and done. More pie to those who bought the platinum subscription package. Sure, it was costly, could have bought a new Honda Civic instead, but when you get your "cable bill" in the mail, instead of "you owe us 89.99", you get "thank you for your attention, we've added 89.99 to your account balance." Works for e-books, music... everything. That's what we have here, most just don't realize it yet. Many don't even realize the entertainment industry generates billions yearly it seems. Shooting for basic facebook status messaging and photo sharing aspect is what some shoot for, thinking that's the future, but really those things are just designed to gather data. All smoke and mirrors used to push advertising into minds. Primitive and pointless. Sorry for the ramble.

Google takes 45%. A small handful of people get rich, buy yachts, do cocaine, while expensive hookers feed them grapes off the vine, or something

Sounds about right, but sometimes it goes very, very wrong.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3261079/google-executive-death-prostitute-heroin-yacht-california/

Yeah, I think that's the party I got invited to but couldn't go because I had "plans." Ha! How is that story even real...

The troubled hooker, whose father is also a CEO of a large tech company in California...

The man, a 53-year-old monkey trainer...

That's comedic gold right there. That writer should be on Steemit.

Speaking of which... Isn't it fun how we're all back to talking in circles about some of the same things we've been talking in circles about since they invented the circle?

Do you really think someone invented the circle?

Posted using Partiko Android

Well, yeah, I mean, haven't you ever heard the legend? That guy went to work one day, started building squares on the production line, like any normal day before that. It was almost lunch break and he still had work to do, but was SUPER hungry, so he cut some corners to get the job done faster, and that square took on the shape of something like -----> O <----- one of those. The boss liked it and promoted him to lead shift supervisor, and you know what his name was? That's right!

Juan Circle

Damn
Fuck school, only told me shit

Thanks sir

Posted using Partiko Android

The title cracked me up. Lol..

Posted using Partiko Android

It seems you came back at the right time :), when we need things explained in a simple, interesting way, and with a little bit of comedy.

I am skeptically optimistic.

Skeptically optimistic is a good way to be.

On point...just been wondering, why the hell should create when my money through my SP can work for me.

Good morning (here) @trafalgar. Your account is new to me and I am here commenting on your post due to following a “multiple links trail” of various resteems leading to it …

”That means, we'll need two good actors for each bad actor to bring their rewards down to a point where they might as well be curating honestly”

”I can spend $6000 a month fighting abuse with the full knowledge that at least 75% of that money is just flowing into the pockets of others doing the exact same thing.”

”It's just too expensive and too futile to do anything 'good' in a broken economy. Knowing this, most of us capitulate and choose to just maximize our own stake to mitigate the negative price effects of a failing platform and in the process we make it worse. This is why we desperately need the EIP. I'll likely be switching sides once that's introduced.”

[emphasis added mine}

I have chosen to invest my time in commenting (typically not a profitable use of my time …) on the basis on finding a lot of revealing input on what has been an enormously frustrating part of my “journey” on the Steem blockchain. You have chosen to “shine the light” on it in a way I have not found before now (of course it may be “in here” somewhere, but how do we find content in anything approaching a time-efficient manner …)

”We don't create a set of economic rules that rely on good people to be altruistic for the system to work. We create a set of economic rules that force bad people to do good things in order to be profitable.”

Rather than taking the “high road” and leading by example approach, ultimately, it appears to this Steemian you are proposing that the ancient WIIFM (what’s in it for me) principle will be our “salvation.” If this goes through, then I’m sure we’ll all be very interested to find out if that is in fact the case …

However, the upside is a very real possibility of overhauling this entire platform and converting it into a largely functioning content discovery and rewards platform that it was always intended to be.”

In the hope that you know (as a self-confessed “player,” if nothing else …) more about this subject than the vast majority of the rest of us “in here,” I have supported and resteemed your post. I sincerely appreciate your straight-up style and straightforward honesty in writing it.

Have a good day!

Rather than taking the “high road” and leading by example approach,

We did come from a place where many, including myself were voting honestly around HF 17-19. But slowly, the broken economy overwhelmed us and those of us who didn't outright leave capitulated into turning this place into a toilet.

If we lost the fight when things were far better, there's virtually no hope now of leading by example since a new equilibrium around self voting/vote selling has set in. I think the broken windows theory very much applies here. Our best chance is to reform the economic rules that lead to large scale misbehavior.

If this goes through, then I’m sure we’ll all be very interested to find out if that is in fact the case …

As am I

First @trafalgar, let me thank you for investing the time to reply. Frankly, I am not accustomed to that, from a “whale.” “In here” for over a year now, most of the time, my experience has not been that favorable when corresponding with a “whale” …

”I think the broken windows theory very much applies here. Our best chance is to reform the economic rules that lead to large scale misbehavior.”

You have made a valid case, to my mind, for the point of your post – arguing in favor of these proposed changes. And, I accept your specific point here since, as I said to begin with, presumably you would know far better than most. It is your “straight up” and candid style which is refreshing to me, so thank you for that as well.

At the end of it all, as I have written about before in my own posts, I suppose some like the use of the word “pioneers” in describing what we are going through. “Pioneers” in what? Learning firsthand what it is like to experience the “utopia” of a decentralized blockchain and all that is really happening vs. the “marketing hype” about what might happen. At the core of it, it is dealing with human nature. In all of its “glory” and how to “manage” that, when no one really has any authority “in here” to direct change vs. affect change …

We’ll find out together what the “Top 20” decide is the best course, going forward, as God knows there is a considerable problem which needs an effective solution to address it. The sooner the better …

Have a good day @trafalgar!

Resteemed, your honesty is refreshing and while I know this is contentious I just can't see things getting worse.

I listened to a heated convo on that bastard discord earlier today and you of course were brought up as the discussion was about why EIP now?

It seemed like a crazy idea when first introduced by you collaborators but some feel it's recently gained traction due to an overall sense of panic.

I think it's valid to point out that proposing a new economics model that's the lesser of two evils is an admission that it cannot be more broken than it is currently.

This is difficult to come to terms with. But, as a relatively new user that is in the minority as an adopter attracted by a censorship resistant platform that offers a steep learning curve but rewarding edification in all things crypto I see this as a step to less of a plutocracy.

As it is nobody like myself will ever stick around here as I have. I feel I represent the moronic normie social media users that are using every other centralised platform in mass and we can save this place from itself.

Basically this platform is completely broken due to badly aligned economic rules. It couldn't get much worse than right now unless you actively tried.

By introducing a series of measures, we can better align individual profit maximizing behavior with honest voting. But these measures themselves have downsides so we have to be careful not to crank the dial up too much.

If we get the dosage just right, we'll hopefully get a working content discovery and rewards platform with minimal or at least tolerable negative side effects. There's just a lot more to gain than to lose.

Agreed, does the option to have the content creator choose the percentage of curation complicate matters further or is that an absurd idea? I would assume it would create a ton of data and appeals to me as it gives me the freedom to experiment within freedom's experimental ecosystem..

I want to also add how impactful temporary delegations could quickly improve a small accounts stake that manually curates.. In 7 months I've made 7 sp curating, if a whale delegated to me for a month I would vastly increase my earning potential. This seems like a positive aspect I think that's not been seen from the redfish lens. As it stands I give two fucks about curating as its pointless except to support what I enjoy. That's the point of social media

Curation slider will likely just encourage big stakers to pile onto posts that offer 100% curation (effectively self voting). It's a complicated economic subject because ultimately, a secondary market can circumvent most (all?) primary rules, but I'm somewhat against this one overall.

A delegation market will still exist, but it'll be quite different after the dust has settled under the EIP. Delegations will likely be cheaper as it doesn't have to price in self voting/vote laundering.

That all makes sense... Thx

Posted using Partiko Android

On that bastard discord? That's hilarious. :) I'm flattered.

Haha, I didn't name names and I just meant discord in general as an off chain forum where the real drama lives and breathes.. Nothing at all personal

mhmm. ;) I stand by everything I said and have self -identified.

I never say things I don't want to get called out for.

Regarding these issues:

On their own I am not totally opposed to any of them. A panicky hail mary hoping for the best I am strongly against.

Its a bad idea, too close together without thought or reasoning and will not bring in new users and will likely run off many more of the few users we have left

It feels railroaded and panicked and rushed. It is up to our witnesses to keep the chain safe, I am hoping they will do just that. However, it looks unlikely. A DPOS system is only as good as it's largest stakeholders.

Oh and to Traf good motives to do bad things... That's weak even if you try to distract from it by using the word cunt. Dishonest and underhanded is just that. And yeah there is no need for that kind of language.

Wankers wank.. It's what they do, when they get caught they try to pretend someone else made them wank.

I have more respect for Bernie, at least he does what he does and doesn't make lame excuses.

Agree or disagree, your characterization of this as remotely panicky is way off base. All of the components have been discussed for a year or more (some more like three years) and the package as a whole for several months.

This isn't being done on a sudden or panicked basis, it has been very carefully and very extensively debated and considered, and eventually the dev team and most of the major stakeholders have largely come to a consensus on it.

Pretty much the opposite of panic.

That's an interesting point of view and I fully disagree. Also regarding the dpoll taking consensus, it was out of context.

The code isn't out and I thought you guys couldn't come to consensus until there was code. Make up your mind. Just the other day you said there is nothing to come to consensus on.

"The discussion period is over when someone (generally steemit in practice) creates a credible code release that can either be adopted or not. Its up to them to decide. That could happen 30 seconds from now or 30 days."

^^ Your own words directed at me... Which is it @smooth?

The code isn't out and I thought you guys couldn't come to consensus until there was code

That is true formally. If the code comes out and it sucks, witnesses will reject it regardless of what was informal consensus earlier, and if it is very unpopular, especially with large stakeholders, witnesses who try to approve it will be voted out. Or for that matter, people may simply change their minds.

Informally, there have been discussions for months to years and a rough consensus appears to be in place to move forward with EIP. But ultimately you are correct that we won't know for sure until a specific hard fork candidate is considered for activation on the blockchain and then either is or is not activated.

Honestly, and take my opinion for the little it is worth, I am cheering for this and any type of changes that aim more toward good content. First of all let me say that if I were in your place I would do EXACTLY what you have been doing and probably way more.

In the end I think what would gravitate more people to stay and join is the idea that they would find good content of all kind, from simple gif and comment, long historical or scientific posts, photography, music, and of course COMedy because when I joined steemit I found @comedyopenmic and I stuck around not because of the payments but as time went by it became frustrating to see all of what transpired within my time here.

Having more people come and stay, places like whalshares are having a lot of unsatisfied steemains moving there, is essential to the success of steemit.

Maybe I am not even making sense here. But overall I just find this worth the shot despite the risk because some of us are still doing this for the love of making good content. Like I spend a lot of my free time to research stuff like world war 2 and Hitler just to bring out good content, last time I left I ended up coming back while being hesitant but I feel if I leave I won’t comeback which is not a loss in a singular sense but you might end up having having a whole site filled with just self voters and no content to attract people from the outside. So I like this plan and most importantly the spirit it is being pitched with. Have a great day

The idea is to come up with a system that's condusive to broadly honest voting across the platform with negative side effects that are at least tolerable.

I'm optimistic. It'll be great even if it noticeable improves things. This entire place will change if it doesn't feel like I'm reaching into my wallet and handing you some cash every time I vote on something I actually like, which is what it feels like right now under this broken system.

You know I've been pushing for economic reform all along. I'm not willing to forgo my own voting rewards if 75% of all active stake is doing the same, but that doesn't mean I prefer this broken system. EIP will hopefully be a huge step in a direction that'll lead to mostly honest voting platform wide.

I really wish you luck with thi, steemit means a lot to me. It is the only source for me to bitch, whine, write, and have fun AND get paid for it. Good luck Traf.

Bitcoin only works because the game theory FORCES all nodes to ACT in the best interest of the network.

Not because there are good people more than there are bad.

That's the standard of this new technology we're trying to build. At least, I believe so.

Will this EIP give us such?

No.

Will it get us closer to it?

YES.

Yes, it's naive to believe we can force 100% of active stake to vote honestly irrespective of the economic rules adopted

We can however, reward honest voting a lot more and dishonest voting a lot less, which is what the EIP is designed to do. Hopefully a very large portion, maybe even an overwhelming majority of active stake will want to participate in honest voting instead.

As you can see from the 'How do you Expect These Measures To Work Together to Encourage Honest Voting?' section, it'll require 2 good actors for each bad actor under the new system to close the pay gap between honest and dishonest voting. It's definitely worth a shot and we can tweak the numbers later.

Seems logical right?

Posted using Partiko Android

More than what gave birth to our current Trending page, yes.

But Chb has given me untold self help wealth I could never repay...😂

Posted using Partiko Android

Don't worry. We'll tell Steemit Inc. to start pinning his posts

Hey, what's the deal, it's confirmed that we can delegate our free downvotes? I don't think you meant it like that when you said that "downvotes delegated from upvotes" but such a function as delegating our downvotes would be very handy.

Posted using Partiko Android

It's not confirmed yet unfortunately

I would like the 25% free downvotes to be separately delegatable from upvotes, this partially remedies 3 problems:

  1. Insulates smaller stakeholders from retaliation - It's far less likely for larger stakeholders to strike back if you're just 1 of 100 delegators to a specialized abuse fighting group/s
  2. Encourages inactive whales to participate in fighting abuse without interfering with their curation income. So they can delegate their upvotes to curation groups (and likely receive a share of income) and their downvotes to abuse fighting groups separately.
  3. Downvotes cast by intermediary groups would likely be more impartial rather than personal, vindictive and emotional.

I'm hoping it'll come with this feature, but not if it's at the cost of waiting another HF. Basically I'll take whatever they have for the next HF and we can add features like this later if it doesn't come out of the box with them.

Ok, that's what I thought.

@vandeberg, @sneak, @steemitblog, @andrarchy and @teamsteem. Inquiring minds want to know what the plan is, please let us know. I for one think that if it takes another day or two to have this feature it would be a much more complete package, in fact it could almost be considered essential for the minnows and plankton such as myself to fully utilize the invaluable resource. I understand that free downvotes are geared towards large accounts but us small fry can also assemble like Voltron and police the network.

#let-our-powers-combine
#captainplanet

Yes to all! When this hits live I'll be the fist one to undelegate from bidding bot I'm delegating to for more than one year now. Linear curve with 25%curation rewards did nothing good for the Steem price, nothing good for content discovery, nothing good for new people when most of us delegated to bidbots. Curation needs to be at 50% today, this won't magically fix everything but it will be a step in the right direction!

Likewise, I'll be on the hunt for pricks doing exactly what I'm doing right now, as strange as that sounds, it's perfectly logical

Because under the EIP, fighting against abuse is no longer expensive and futile!

Found a couple for you, these 'traf' and 'raindrop' accounts man, really kicked my Steem morale in the knackers this past year.

You mention it only needing 2 accounts around your size to keep you on the straight and narrow - any idea who they could be? The cascading effect seems only likely to work if the top active voters get in line. That's transisto and ranchorelaxo/haejin - yeah, i'm not holding my breath but it would be nice to see your name appear on the vote pile of some decent content in the future.

I’m glad to see someone fighting to improve the platform, for the betterment of Steem and steemit in general. I think it’s a hell of a lot better than just sitting back and complaining, and sure it won’t correct everything, but I’m pretty sure it’s going to be a hell of a lot better than now.

Ultimate we are supposed to be a social network but one simple thing is not working in the current state which is that money is not flowing around and people are not communicating. I might as well start posting pictures of my ass, no one will notice, they probably just think it’s another selfie of mine (can’t blame them though, it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes).

Further more to just wait for the SMT to solve everything sounds a bit naive, if a company launches a product that is “broken” will you buy it based on the promise that the next model is going to be awesome - so don’t worry ? I think not.

I support your proposal, and I hope most people will realize that it’s worth a try, because things can’t get worse as I see it, only better if we have the guts to change a bit.

Thanks dan

Yes, a social media platform can't function if there's no connection between people's voting behavior and their subjective opinion of the underlying content. It's hard to come up with something like what we currently have unless you tried. After Steemit's restructuring, they were more receptive to my ideas on improving the economic system, as well has how urgent it is, for which I'm grateful.

I don't think waiting for SMTs is an option. It's like if the house is on fire and half the people are debating whether or not to buy a new couch for the lounge room or put out the fire.

Hopefully after these changes it'll no longer feel like I'm paying someone out of pocket every time I upvote a post that isn't my own. I want the rewards pool to be used for rewards rather than staking returns

Btw, you owe me 21c

Scary and exciting all at the same time love it!

haha it's not meant to be scary, if it is it's due to the unavoidable consequence of accepting some trade offs.

It's been a while since voting for someone else's post didn't feel like you're reaching into your wallet and paying them directly out of pocket. And that's the problem, voting rewards are now seen as staking returns.

It's exactly what we're trying to change. See how the measures compliment each other. If I decrease one, I'll likely have to increase another at equilibrium. More measures is actually safer than fewer.

Imagine how high curation would have to go for me to be pretty confident it alone will change the status quo. 80%? 90%? That makes it pretty pointless for non staking authors to participate.

Using multiple measures at once is the precise reason why we can achieve big change with acceptable trade offs.

Are you not entertained is this not what you came for? I can't gif on partiko but imagine Russel Crowe gladiating

Posted using Partiko Android


Social Media (of all forms) will always be an exercise in Game Theory. The EIP does look like it is head and shoulders above the current and previous configurations.

Making it more beneficial to go from Bad to Good instead of Good to Bad should be a huge improvement.

Finally, someone who appreciates true art

The current economy is paying content indifferent voting behavior (self voting, vote selling to bid bots, etc.) 4x more than honest curation.

I vote on content, nothing proposed for the EIP is going to really change the vote habits of the larger accounts. My vote at 100% is slightly less than four cents. Which means I only need to find 20 or so post that I like and value enough to vote on. Most days I do not have a problem finding those 20 people to vote on.

No one is going to bat an eye at my 100% or 50% vote. It is simply impossible for a large account to do "Honest Curation". Look at how hard it is for you to find things to vote Honestly on. If you do not want your account sitting at 100% vote power earning nothing, no rewards, I know some people do not mind that, an investor wants to use his money/vote power to make more money. It will do no good and be impossible for him to find a sufficient amount of content in a reasonable time to provide a vote that will not be downvoted due to providing excessive rewards.

How long before a large account that can vote at $20.00 for 100% vote, $10.00 for a 50% vote, before his votes are being downvoted? how long before he decides he has spent enough time trying to find 20 things to vote on and gives up? As the price and the value of steem rises, the problem is only going to become more difficult. It would be nice if people only voted on stuff they found, on stuff they read, but the larger the account the more stuff you need to find to give a reasonable vote on that is not going to seem like an excessive reward.

Unless of course the whole idea is to get a lot of content voted up to the multiples of 1000's value wise to show the rest of the world how much money can be made on steem blockchain.

I do not like the bid bots, I do not like the vote selling, but the reality is that it is impossible to do away with them. They let the larger accounts be an active part of the steem economy with out sending it back to the days of five cent value per steem.

Ask your self will any of these changes stop you from self voting every now and then just to lower your vote power and have it earn a little bit of steem for you?

Ask your self will any of these changes stop you from self voting every now and then just to lower your vote power and have it earn a little bit of steem for you?

You got one affirmative answer in this post, at least on paper. Though it was a 'maybe'.

And nobody is saying it's going to change everything. But the new rules are wired so that they get more if they do more (rather than just being lazy). So there's at least an incentive to shift. That actually goes for bid bots as well.

I guess when it is all said and done then we will know the outcome. Then people can find the next thing to change so they can move on and put it all behind or on the back burner. I still re-call all the talk about RC's how that was going to Allow everyone to create free accounts to onboard their friends and family, how it was going to control spam content on the steem blockchain, how it would improve content quality and provide things for manual curation. It did not happen how envisioned or at least how it was presented to the people, and I do not see this helping the general user, nor improving content, nor improving curation. I fail to see how this will fix anything other than allowing for the pis-ant flag accounts to flag 25% more often since it will be a free 25%. So instead of 100 flags they will be able to do 125 flags, or more.

I have read all the post put out by steemitblog, not one of them has left me with a clear understanding of what the problem is and what they are trying to fix.

There are two flag issue's one-abusive flagging of individuals and specific types of content. - - two - not enough flagging for excessive rewards.

Curation - post get voted in the first hour or two then curation efforts are over because there is no incentive to curate after the fact. a 50/50 split is not going to fix that.

I would love to see what would happen to a post, any random post, that a whale felt like giving a 100% upvote on because they liked it. When looking at the votes from vote trails most of them are in the single digit or less percentage wise and it makes no difference as to how much Steem Power the account hold. Those with 60 SP vote at 1% as often as those with 100,000 SP vote at 1%.

I honestly do not see how a single one of the proposals are going to help the steem economic situation or the social situation on the blockchain.

Well, you mentioned point (2) on flagging for excessive rewards, and that's the main upside, as mentioned here.

Regarding curation, you are quite wrong about that, and in fact I feel this is something that more people should be aware of. You get back 1/8th of your value even if you vote last (and the curation curve is designed for preserving a minimum incentive to curate). Of course, you can say that's a garbage amount, but it's quite crucial, because as you say, a lot of people are under the impression that after the votes are done there's no reason to vote on top. And that's just not true.

But right, that's not relevant to 50/50 at all. What it is relevant to is that it gives more motivation than before to curate vs self vote. Obviously some people will prefer to be lazy, but the way things are designed, curating really gets quite a boost (especially with the curve).

That is a point that I and no doubt most others miss about the curation reward system, otherwise there would be more individuals like me that vote when we see, read, or enjoy the post regardless of when the post was made if it is in the seven day window. Most post never receive secondary votes after 36 hours of being posted.

The argument completely bunk. People's habits are a direct consequence of the rules of the game. If the rules change of course their habits will too, and no we aren't talking about one or two extremes that jack off in the corner by themselves, but the vast majority who develop their strategy directly because of said rules. These are numerous posts, and even more comments, and even more responses to comments. There's no end of material to vote on. It's so much nonsense to claim that changing the rules will not change the way it's played or that it's hard to find content to vote on.

You say "How long before a large account that can vote at $20.00 for 100% vote, $10.00 for a 50% vote, before his votes are being downvoted?" without indicating if it's honest voting or not, so the question is largely without any meaningful relevance. Let's say you meant that he's honest, and his votes get countered. So what? What is the point, that a large account is fighting against the clock until the inevitable result of his votes being negate? And? What's the point as the question even with relevant context is pointless..

"how long before he decides he has spent enough time trying to find 20 things to vote on and gives up?"

The myth that there's not enough good content for people to vote on. Regardless, let's say that it's true (where do you get the idea for such nonsense though?) so then he self votes, and guess what, he risks getting downvoted. And now what is your point once more?

They must risk it, because that is, exactly how it's supposed to function, what is, excessive ougt to be negated, as what is abusive.

I do not like the bid bots, I do not like the vote selling, but the reality is that it is impossible to do away with them. They let the larger accounts be an active part of the steem economy with out sending it back to the days of five cent value per steem.

Nonsense, the point isn't to do away with them, the point is to undermine them, to make it harder for them, not to do away with them. The point if it wasn't clear as it was repeatedly made by the op, is to make it so that people can compete with them. If you don't want to see that point fine, but many people do, many recognize that bidbots don't help, they aren't in any such delusion as 'bidbots let large accounts be an active part of the community', and you really need to stretch the meaning behind the phrase 'active part of the community' to describe delegating to bidbots and raking in the cheating.

Posted using Partiko Android

I have been preaching the value of honest curation for so long so I agree with that sentiment but I don't see how this will achieve this.

50/50 seems like it would amplify the curation sniping game which is mostly content agnostic (some use certain metadata in their vote prediction strategy) and reward those that predict votes.

Will some manual curators get lucky from time to time and predict organic voting based on the substance of content? Perhaps but I am convinced the vast majority of profitable curation will be simply mapping out autovotes and beating them to the punch.

Will honest manual curators will have any conceivable advantage over a bot curator? I am doubtful of this.

As for free downvotes, I think this notion reflects a very optimistic view of humanity. I would go so far as to call it naive. Now the bad actors can still self-vote but additional they have a quiver of free downvotes to employ to any users that would take action against their abuse.

I have been told by my colleagues at @steemflagrewards to wait and see about this but I don't think it will bode well for our kind that have sacrificed our SP against abuse.

The network lacked proper incentives so we created them. Think we have a good system going of crowdfunded moderation.

Now, I am concerned with out ability to reward the activity of finding and dealing with abuse to include the push back we get from abusers when they have free downvotes.

I guess the plus is SFR will be able to downvote a couple times a day when there is some really egregious abuse. Of that, there is no lack.

Appreciate you at least trying to do something even if I don't have the greatest expectation. It is what it is. Maybe if this doesn't pan out, you can give our off chain solution a look and consider supporting what we do.

You can't see the measures in isolation from each other, they work together.

50/50 on its own doesn't quite get us where we need to be. But in conjunction with free downvotes, poorer quality content will likely take a hit and people will be less profitable with their content indifferent curation practices.

I believe the majority of downvotes will be used with fair intentions of bringing down overvalued posts. There will be some who abuse their downvotes to cause grief onto others, but overall it's a worthwhile price to pay for a real chance at achieving largely honest voting behavior platform wide

I see. I think if these changes do, in fact, make voting less predictable then there is a good chance of effecting a change in behavior from content agnostic voting.

It's a big 'if' though. We would be happy to supplement the probability of that hypothesis coming to fruition if you would be interested.

Perhaps, we can put in a motion for SFR to follow snipers to any abuse and work to zero them out. No payout on the abuse. No curation rewards on the post.

We have bodies with varying amounts of time that can be willing to evaluate the content but may need a hand zeroing them. Then the snipers get diddly squat.

Food for thought.

The EIP proposal is IMO missing the opportunity to re-structure the Steem Ecosystem for the upcoming Dapp Economy.
Here is my take on this.

My biggest concern with this EIP is that blogging and Steemit.com is still the main source to "mine Steem". But we all want to have a thriving SMT and Dapp economy. That is an unfair privilege for Steemit.com and blogging in general compared to all other dapps like Steemhunt, Magic dice or Steemmonsters. IMO the whole POB mechanism should be removed from the baselayer Steem and should be put in the hands of SMT and communities. Steempower should only be good for voting on witnesses, voting on worker proposals from the foundation and maybe vote on SMT main accounts to allocate some Steem from the reward pool.
When SMT and communities are here than those admins should have control over the reward curve mechanism and POB they want to implement.
But if we leave Steem with blogging only mining than its going to be an on going issue while we move towards an dapp economy.

Insightful and forward-looking. I do agree we should think more than one step ahead. Maybe (hypothetically) EIP helps with directing inflation to rewards on a particular model of a blogging platform, but what is that good for? It doesn't necessarily add value to Steem. (And if it doesn't it will still ultimately fail because the value of Steem will continue to erode and no matter how well you direct inflation, a share of a cheap and still-depreciating asset isn't worth much.)

Thank you @smooth for your support. I hope that idea becomes more popular since we don't have so much time to fix the Steem economy.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'm not 100% in favor of the idea, but I do think it should remain in consideration.

How exactly does this solve the “problem”? Authors get less rewards, controversial posts are encouraged to be downvoted, and bid bots will still be profitable if they upvote themselves or proxy accounts. Sorry but it sounds like a terrible idea and really just a lazy solution. If anything it’s just going to encourage even more circlejerking

Authors get more in reality because most of the rewards go back into the pockets of stakeholders right now. 50% of a large pie is far better than 75% of next to nothing.

I believe abusive post farms and poor quality bid bot posts would likely be a much larger target for free downvotes than posts about controversial subject matters, generally speaking.

How exactly is it a larger pie? Still doesn’t solve the problem of people upvoting their friends because they are friends. Good content will never organically reach the top on this platform unless you figure out a way to completely get rid of self voting and voting rings.

But more than that, there will always be a small group of people who try to minmax any platform and game the system. But as long as there is money to be made then you can’t stay ahead of them. As I see it the only thing this change will do is make it impossible for people to use bots for exposure, at least not without taking a massive hit. So we’ll go back to the small group of cool kids getting their posts constantly upvoted by their cool kid friends, full of unnecessarily positive “great job!” type comments...

Maybe just outlaw bidbots altogether and heavily penalize people who use and operate them. There are always ways around it but this would get rid of most of them for sure and at least make them invisible to most users. Make using bidbots a bannable offense.

But like I said even then that’s not going to solve the problem of people just putting money in their friends pockets instead of actually upvoting good shit.

How is friends upvoting each other even a problem? That is the point. The follower feature is essential to the whole ecosystem, you cannot fix "friends supporting each other" without completely breaking any premise that social media, community and society itself is predicated on. Speaking of social media, the point is to gain an audience. You seem to think that it's a problem, or that people will not try to make friends with new people, that they won't vett friends to others and introduce them to their groups. I literally did just that with @lordless.exyle and @quillfire, I hardly can call them acquaintance to top it all off, I'm possibly THE most antisocial person on here and I'd give the most cave dwelling isolated recluse a run for their money but even someone as socially autistic as myself won't subscribe to the notion that "friends being friends" is a problem.

There's no voting rings, stop the nonsense. Also, the point of the proposal is not to rid the place of any profit maximizing behavior, it's to make profit maximizing behavior in line with discovering content, making friends and genuinely curating. It means that we compete with those who are dead set on extracting every penny they can get out of their stake by "maximizing", and we could even have a decent chance of outperforming them.

The white paper talks about how preventing abuse should not be the goal, the goal should be to penalize it because prevention comes with a much higher cost that everyone will be burdened with.

People can put money in their friends pocket and upvote cool shit, it's not as if those things are remotely exclusive to one another, they may very well be the same thing any number of times.

I wish people would really consider what the proposal is aimed at, instead of putting up these strawmen and false premises for what it is about, especially since the problem is clear and it's past the point of debating it, maybe then we can actually discuss the proposal or similar proposals that focuses on the actual problem instead of spinning in circles.

= _ =

You're one of the few, but hopefully growing number of people who actually really gets it.

Glad to have you help explain these ideas to everyone

"Glad to have you help explain these ideas to everyone"

suuuure

Lol if I could hold myself back from cussing some of them to high heavens and not calling them idiots, fucktards or stupid.

Posted using Partiko Android

@yallapapi, @trafalgar & @baah,

OK, let's be realistic ... Social Media is so-called because it's Social. Human beings bond with one another and create preference groups based upon familiarity and loyalty. You ARE NEVER going to overcome that and in my opinion you ought not want to because any minor distortions caused to some Theoretical Objective Payout Model (based purely upon quality) is more than offset by the value of creating intense cohesion between millions of overlapping and inter-locking social networks.

Sociality is the tie that binds.

The Spartans understood this: Despite their intense life-long training and legendary discipline, they still found it necessary to group family members together in a Phalanx to ensure its integrity during battle.

Besides, "my friendship abuses" will be largely negated by "your friendship abuses" and from a systemic point of view, everything largely works out in the end. Admittedly, a dozen fat walleted friends circle-jerking would create non-trivial systemic distortions but they could be handled on a case-by-case basis. (I deal with that in my Series of Reform Articles).

Far more problematic than friendship-based "unearned generosity" are bidbots and multiple-account-self-upvoting as they introduce pernicious knock-on effects ... like murdering curation by re-directing the 85% of SP that's owned by Whales and Orcas into alternative SP-leasing to bidbots, etc.

In the end, we will always have an imperfect system (human beings are imperfect inputs and therefore create, unavoidably, imperfect outputs). But as I tell my daughter, "95% is by definition imperfect ... but it still gets you into Harvard."

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Let's get to 95% before we even contemplate about how to get to 100%.

Quill

I'm not too smart to comprehend fully everything that is been said here. It looks like a good idea. However I feel the proposal is highly speculative and can equally go wrong. A 20% increase in my curation reward means nothing to me. To a whale it is significant. Doesn't mean they will discover my content. The reliance on whales to act accordingly should stop. Ever since the introduction of falls this blockchain has been less about them and more about the people using steem. I think we should keep it that way Chances are they would simply join a curation trail and that's that.

I don't see my activities changing with if these things are been implemented. Most likely my activities will reduce. I would simply leverage on autovotes like I have and share my creative resource amongst different platforms.

I think the problem of content discovery can only be solved if more power (stake) is invested in community. We saw a significant change in distribution when dapps arrived. This is because they got delegation to run their operates and reward users of their dapps. The same cab happen if steemit empowers communities like they did dapps.

Can we develop front ends with unique algorithms that promote quality posts based on engagement and other meaningful yardsticks? Isn't that doable? Won't that change the face of our trending pages?

I also believe that if accounts that are supposed to track spamming activities are doing their job effectively we will also reduce the impact of bad actors. People act badly because that's just who they are. It has little to do with economic policies. I'm not hoping that a change in steem's economic model will deter them. They will simply find their way around it. Like you said there are loopholes and they can exploit that.

Posted using Partiko Android

Can we develop front ends with unique algorithms that promote quality posts based on engagement and other meaningful yardsticks? Isn't that doable? Won't that change the face of our trending pages?

The most popular social media platforms spend billions perfecting their content sorting algorithm even when votes (likes, favorites, thumbs up, hearts etc) generally reflect honest opinions. It's far more difficult to do this well when votes are generally dishonest here. And it's not just about sorting, it's also about rewarding good content, which this does not solve.

People act badly because that's just who they are. It has little to do with economic policies.

Economic policies have a very potent impact on behavior. If your society rewarded you with $100 every time you drove under the influence instead of giving you a fine and suspending your license, they'll likely be far more drunk drivers.

You have the align the behavior you want, in our case honest voting, with the right rewards.

A 20% increase in my curation reward means nothing to me

It is actually a doubling of curation reward. The current asymmetry between 75 and 25 introduces a leverage effect where shifting reward from author to curator means a lot more to the curator percentage-wise than it does to the author.

It is true that for the very smallest stakeholders, even 2x curation reward won't even be noticed (and may still round down to zero and still not be paid at all), but there are many in the middle for whom this will be a very significant increase and encourage more attention to curation, even if not whales. It is also more of an incentive to power up and increase your curation rewards.

It is also more of an incentive to power up and increase your curation rewards.

Absolutely. Doubling curation rewards starts to sound really appealing at even 15/20k SP held. At current market prices, that isn't an enormous stake to the western world, and I would like to think that individuals and businesses could see that % much more interesting than at present.

it is logical)
scary because there are no guarantees))

I laffed. :) You must be a Pom or an Aussie.

Tie me kangaroo down, sport?

What about Resteems?

In my opinion the most important curation tool isnt being rewarded..

Also while I understand it's important to have a good basis, you should also start to rebuilt Steemit.
Cuz that's the layer people use.

Not the steem Code but the Steemit Code (frontend) decides about what is shown on for example trending.

Also you shouldnt have changed to linear rewards in the first place.

Insead of really getting something right, we are in a destructive repair loop..
Just finally decentralize and let the community decide.
Central entity is not decentralized.

Use ur ninja stake to fund what the community wants.

Finally you made it into a post. Many salient points.

Thanks
appreciate the work you guys do, it's really a no win situation for you guys most of the time
I'm optimistic that the EIP will work better than what most people expect, once the dust has settled after a couple of months

Hi @trafalgar, we noticed that you are flagging this user all the time, could you please tell us the reason? https://steemit.com/@capitanonema

"But Aren't You One of the Bad Actors Traf, Ya Cunt?"

Haha.... my fav Traffy is back!

Fuck you too! :p

$Rewarding 100%

you're a total misterdelegation dicksucking retard i detected you even if your last post was months ago

just by burning a few steem

there's FACTIONS here, ...bro

your good content ?

you downvote

you censor

o wait a minute i have to PAY to post this hold on

1 steem maybe ?

if thats enough then i paid for the privilege of replying and you owe me the exact amount you downvoted

YOU BITCH

dicksucking crowd-following wannabe ... maybe you can get your fans to attack me too

Hello friend, I hope you can see my drawings with a different style and comment and vote ... thank you for your support will be very helpful

Hello friend, I hope you can see my drawings with a different style and comment and vote ... thank you for your support will be very helpful

What are the results after the HF21&22, @trafalgar? Can you see a steem price rise somewhere in the future?

Vote selling, self voting, circle jerking are all seeing considerable resistance across the board

Hard to say this early if we can reach an equilibrium where mostly honest voting across the board is the norm

Theoretically, all else being equal a functioning content discovery and rewards platform is superior to a completely dysfunctional one, and this could lead to a price increase. In practice there are so many other variables it's hard to say

I'm cautiously hopeful

hopefully the dolphins and larger accounts on this platform really push the downvote initiative because it's us who have risked the most. The only way we are going to see our investment gain in value is if we start make it unprofitable to be a bad actor.

When is the next HF scheduled to occur?

Yes that's definitely the idea

The next HF will be hopefully around a month away, give or take a few weeks

It'll be a little tight because they're squeezing in EIP along with SPS. But I really think the EIP is worth it and sooner rather than later

I do not know you but I was just downvoted by you. I am here on the STEEM blockchain making videos and posts for people in Splinterlands AKA Steem Monsters. I am home making $9 an hour PT hours for taking care of my disabled 23 year old son. I just want to show you who and what you took from us today. Roughly $10 which is a lot to people like me making minimum wage and especially why I have to stay home but I see not everyone has compassion in life. I used to love the STEEM blockchain, I have been here for 2 years and have loved any small or big amount I have earned here.
Hopefully, you will please remove the upvote.

Chris Love
17662577_1019578851505527_3794652989549969408_n.jpg

IMG_1084.JPG

I cannot I'm afraid.

Please refrain from buying votes and other activities that undermine honest voting on this platform. This is especially true for vote selling schemes like steem monsters that use their own altcoin. If so you're far less likely to be downvoted in the future.

Did anyone consider the previous failure of 50-50 author-curator rewards?

I'm guessing that past actions is not an indicator that this "new" change is likely to fail again?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but trying to understand how changing from a "broken system" to a "previously broken system" is a step forward?

I wasn't around for the previous 50/50 but my understanding is it was changed arbitrarily

Back in Steem's infancy, we had

  1. 100% hyperinflation - total currency supply effectively increasing a million fold after 30 years
  2. n^2 curve - someone with 1000 times your stake gets a vote 1,000,000 times your weight

It would have had severe problems but it was unlikely due to the 50/50. As you can see, the rest of the package is entirely different from those extreme measures.

hello @trafalgar, sorry if I disturb your time. I just want to say that me-tarzan raped the steem prize pool. in one day he posted up to 12 times. and he doesn't vote for others. he only voted for himself. it really looks like rubbish.

I'm also sorry to contact you from here. I don't want to report this openly. because I was afraid that someone else would tell me-tarzan that I had reported it.
I really love steem. but I was unable to downvote him. because I have very little power. that's all I want to say. I hope you check it.

Thank you for voting on my blog!
I followed you:)
Have a good day♡

Thank you very much for downvoting me.
BR

Wow! You down voted me without any kind of consult or discussion? I’m holding a mini giveaway on this article - doesn’t that make a difference?

Hello there, its been a while. What does EIP stands for by the way?

Posted using Partiko iOS

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/improving-the-economics-of-steem-a-community-proposal

I can't remember, but it's somewhere in there lol

Basically it's about amending the economic rules here to 50% curation, 25% free downvotes, and a convergent linear curve.

This will hopefully encourage large scale honest voting.

What if the bad actors decide not to do anything at all?

Posted using Partiko iOS

?
You mean good actors?

I believe good actors will be far more inclined to attempt to fight abuse if

  1. it's not prohibitively expensive to do so; and
  2. it's not almost guaranteed to be ineffective

The EIP is designed address these things and hopefully will be sufficient.

I mean the bad actors will stop doing bad and decide not to do anything but wait until stakes grow big.

Posted using Partiko iOS

You can't stop bad actors if they wish to continue to behave badly even if it's less profitable than behaving honestly.

But you can try to make bad behavior less profitable than honest behavior, which is what the EIP is trying to do

Hi @trafalgar

What's your opinion about cross-posted Instagram and Tweets to Steemit (Share2steem function)?

@trafalger why are you flagging some really good quality posts that have not paid for votes? Please remove the flags on maybe the funniest post I have ever seen on Steem which did not pay for any votes...

EDIT
Seems likely that you have set auto flags to counter bid bots, and have not adjusted your flags after the bid bots started trailing curation groups

Wow just saw your downvote on this post https://steemit.com/creativecoin/@spintwister/nudity-is-a-form-of-art-not-a-sin another really amazing post that did not buy votes. Are you just flagging posts that @curie and @OCD / @ocdb / @acidyo vote for some reason? Just trying to make sense of what you are doing. Nothing you have posted in your comments about the EIP and downvote pool explain why you would be downvoting amazing posts that did not buy paid votes. You really should make a post about your current actions, at the very least.

EDIT
Seems likely that you have set auto flags to counter bid bots, and have not adjusted your flags after the bid bots started trailing curation groups

so you are here saying that you will manually curate (let's say) 100 random people a day with this new system. and you will spend time to find new and small users and will vote for them even they have no votes (because they are new) knowing that with this new curve you will earn much less?

no one is telling us what will happen with new and small accounts. and small by this new rules could be 3000 SP.
And i do hope we all want a lot more people here, or maybe not?

You must be an artist, i have a very similar artwork on my last post, and yes i am an artist.

It's already the second time that you put me downvote, you, traf, raindrop and edriseur, explain to me why? It's so funny?

Friend @trafalgar, first I want to thank the positive votes to appreciate my publications. I really thank you very much, on the other hand I received a negative vote in a publication about Kiwi, I would like to know what it is, it is so that I do not make the same mistake again, thanks in advance.

Source

Awesome post, I like it.

I have Upvoted and following you.
Thank you so much for your love!

Is there any particular reason / rationale as to why the system works on stake-based voting? I understand the logic behind giving a portion of the inflation to stake-holders as interest -- but the more I think about it, the less and less it makes sense to have large-stakeholders votes (which is essentially an opinion) on content discovery worth more than others.

One almost certainly has to assume that most people are just going to vote for themselves if they're able to give themselves a massive portion of the reward pool and only worry about the occurrence of a similar sized whale starting a flag war with them.


Couldn't a lot of the observed 'unfairness'/broken-economics/user-retention issues be fixed by making every up/down vote (while maintaining the same mechanics for variable vote weight % and voting-mana whatnots) worth the same amount of rShares? Maybe decreasing the size of the reward pool as a whole, while increasing the pool for interest to stakeholders (to incentivize investors and authors/curators to hold SP) and implementing vote-equality would be more effective than just tweaking the split between authors and curators?

While I enjoy watching the whale flag-wars as much as the next person --

My guess is that stake weighted voting is one of the most sybil resistant methods of having a voting economy within a decentralized community where people can be anonymous.

That is to say, it can't be circumvented easily by just making a lot of accounts. It's a very pragmatic reason on top of incentivizing investors to buy more stake to expand their influence. Otherwise, if all votes were equal, more technically savvy individuals would just try to create thousands, maybe millions of accounts and siphon rewards that way.