You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Whales: You Have Some Flagging to Do
We need to return to 50/50 author/curators split.
We don't have a stick; so we need a carrot. Upvoting your own low value stuff should be less lucrative than upvoting other people's quality stuff.
Until we pull that trigger, this'll keep happening.
It will never be less profitable to vote for yourself than it is to vote for others when it comes to short sighted people. 50/50 won't change anything unless it is balanced with a counter incentive to vote for large account holders who guarantee curation rewards regardless of quality of content.
The proposed change to donate curation rewards back to the reward pool instead of the author is an interesting one. Every self voter will wait 15 minutes before they self vote increasing the incentive to vote for whales. More than ever, we need to balance these incentives with voting for hidden gems and underdogs.
If the goal of the few large stake-holders is to game the system, that is what they will do no matter how the math is tinkered with.
Those upvotes make me sick.
I might be that hidden gem you spoke of... COIN MAN...
@pocketechange
Whew! Good thing we fixed that problem!
Srsly.
If curators get 50% then that means 50% of the rewards pool will go to whales only. Small accounts will have very little chance to ever become dolphins or orcas because the rewards pool will just go to those who already have a ton of Steem Power. Curation rewards are near zero for small accounts.
I'd rather see them get most of the curation rewards by upvoting quality minnows, than see them get most of the posting rewards by upvoting each other.
They wouldn't upvote quality minnows. They would upvote their own sock-puppet accounts with content paid for by fiverr as we saw before. There is no silver bullet to this problem. We all just have to stay vigilant and work to continue improving things.
There is a silver bullet - just no one wants to bite it.
End curation rewards.
Problem solved.
Real simple solution:
1 vote = 1 vote, no matter what
no bots
This has the side benefit of making the whole system simpler and ready for mass adoption, since you can just get rid of Steem Power. While you're at it, might as well get rid of Steem Dollars too, since it has failed as a pegged crypto. bitAssets are the only viable pegged cryptos.
I appreciate you raising this issue for discussion and doing it in a civilized way, unlike what has been going on the last couple of weeks. I also appreciate you addressing my comment.
You're right. I don't understand but that is precisely my point. I have been a user for about 8 months and I don't understand how the system works. Sure that's on me but it is not a simple system. If the platform seeks to attain mass adoption, this will be a barrier, as will the fact that if you do not have a strong grasp of how it works and the financial means to act on that, the platform will not deliver on its promise.
I expect that this issue will become worse as the platform gains users. We will see more armies of whale bots feasting on minnows for their own financial gain. The most powerful users will be those who have no interest in advancing the community.
This isn't something I am interested in engaging in. I will continue to visit for some specific content, and I will invest in Steem by buying and selling on exchanges, but the last thing I will ever do is invest in the platform by powering up.
By the way, my comments were intended less as advice for changes to the system than they were pointing out what I see as the problems that will ultimately prevent it from reaching its goals.
Best metaphor for Steemit yet.
Thanks!
And what about limiting the amount of SP votes from whales to one account together with limiting votes from delegated power?
Dramatically reducing the number of bots is the goal, not perfection. Very expensive effort is required to defeat nominal bottraps. This has been shown widely. Captchas and 2FA are widely used because they largely work.
Also, there are things people do that bots can't. No one on Steemit, to my knowledge, has ever even tried to cut bots.
They're too profitable.
Sure, if you leave bots in place. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy then. Given that ~30% of SP supports the witnesses, and that but 2/3 of the top 20 are needed to fork, that's not a great expense to just buy the VP to own the witnesses.
That's not a Sybil attack. It's a bargain.
What really matters to Steemit is rewards for content. Were the gaming that produces all the distortions through bots and curation rewards obviated, retention might crack 10%.
I bet it's getting worse, instead. I've read estimates as low as 8%. Those algos aren't gonna do a bit of good on a dead platform.
Either the Steem gets more broadly distributed, or nothing will fix retention.
Losing bots, egalitarian voting, or at worst a Huey Long style 3% -300% VP, and ending curation, would leave all the whales their mined stakes, and those stakes might become of lasting value on a platform that kept it's users posting and upvoting.
No one would benefit more from a rising Steem price. Nothing less is going to raise it in the long term.
How does one get a core developers ear?
Read the real discussions in the github. Develop an understanding of the actual arguments and issues before weighing in. Then when you have something to contribute, its value speaks for itself and you gradually gain traction and respect.
Thank you
Might be worth starting from scratch.
Let me know how you get on.
More people who self vote, that wouldn't do anything considering the person who self votes gets post the author reward and the curation reward.