RE: HF20 Exploratory Data Analysis on Proposed PayOut Changes
From these conversations the concerns are that these changes will redistribute the rewards to those that are already earning a lot, and the rich will just get richer.
That may be a reasonably accurate reflection of Dave's concern, but it's only a tiny part of mine, for what it's worth. Mine mostly reflect on the fact that voters will have a choice on what to vote for based on how much of the rewards they want to go to the pool. Which can't be determined based on current voting behavior.
If I have a choice to vote for a post which has no early votes - and therefore all of my vote's value will go to the post - or a vote which has some - so some of my vote's value will be redistributed to the wealthy - then I have to make an evaluation of whether a post is worth so much to me that I want to give up some of my stake rewards and have them redistributed.
An early vote essentially turns a small percentage of the post into a declined-rewards post, without that being made clear in the interface to any of the later potential voters.
Several unintentional behaviors will arise from this. One is that authors will be motivated to prevent upvotes in the first fifteen minutes, which can't be a good thing for the system or for its image to new users.
Another is that it will be possible to aggressively remove rewards from a post (and discourage future votes by sophisticated voters) by upvoting it immediately. Which is highly entertaining but I can't imagine it's good system design.
Hey @tcpolymath
Here's a tip for your valuable feedback! @Utopian-io loves and incentivises informative comments.
Contributing on Utopian
Learn how to contribute on our website.
Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV.
Vote for Utopian Witness!
Yup he deserves it, clear explanation, in depth analyzes
Saw the bad effects possible, understood and explained how this HF20 is fixing nothing at all execpt in giving less to the tinies and more to the big boys
I have been following along the discussion as well. I'm not too fond of the 'rich get richer' phrase because it only tells half of the story. The poor also get more. I agree the values can't be compared in absolute terms but still, I find it a one-sided representation of the facts as I understand them. The rich, i.e. the ones that have invested more, that took risks earlier (or just happened to be the lucky first miners) will get more than those that have not invested at all. That sounds reasonable. If it would be the inverse I don't think it would be fair for the rich either.
I do agree with you on the fact that it just is a complex solution that will probably lead to even less understanding of the users. The 30 minute window was invented to circumvent bots and you need to be quite seasoned to understand how it works and what effects it has on your earnings. It's not user friendly at all. Still, people and tools adapted to bypass it and maximize their profits anyway. To some extend the same will happen again. The smart and rich will adapt to benefit more.
I'm not sure about the unintentional behaviors. I think those only apply if you vote really very consciously. I just vote for what I like, I don't look how parameters influence my curation rewards. In that sense an incorrect post payout value won't prevent or motivate me to (not) vote.
I'm also not sure how correct your assumption about this declined reward is. Will it be included in the post reward and be subtracted afterwards or won't it be shown on the interface. They could just keep showing 0 SBD the first 15 minutes but show a number of votes. I don't know, just an idea.
To put it short. I don't agree with your conclusion but I do agree on the fact that it is a bad fix of a previous bad fix for other reasons.
would love to know what reasons you think make it a bad fix?
I do not think it is a bad fix, I just don't think it will work. If it worked it would be good because then there is a chance the rewards pool could grow at a greater rate. but as you say, people will just adapt and that's why i think it will fail as a fix.
Well, you say it yourself, it won't work. That makes it a bad fix. I don't mean to say it will make things worse. But if a fix doesn't fix what it is supposed to fix that makes it a bad fix in my opinion. Just apply the same reasoning when you bring your broken car to the garage. The garage says it is fixed. You get it back and it still doesn't work. I'm guessing you won't consider that a good fix.
You certainly have the right to waste some of your voting power by voting naively if that makes sense to you. But you should be aware that you're wasting some of the voting power of everyone who votes behind you as well.
@tcpolymath thank you for the clarification on your concerns and i am very interested in the intentional and unintentional behaviors that will arise. People will try and 'maximize profit ' and find ways to worth within/around the system to do so.
I often early vote and dont worry about curation rewards. I do this because if I like a post, I know I will forget to go back and let lost in other posts and discussions. But I see the funds going back to the rewards pool as a good thing because it gives the possibility of growing the pool at a faster rate. To me, as steemit becomes more mainstream, this could be a big factor for new investors and so only a good thing.
Enjoy making the people you vote on unhappy, then.
This makes zero sense to me. Can you unpack what you're talking about?
@tcpolymath doesn't voting early simply mean that the author gets more and the voter themselves get less? How does that make people unhappy?
That's what it means right now. After HF20 if it goes through as proposed, the author will be capped at 75% and the extra portion will no longer go to the author but be treated as if it was never used at all.
Part of what this means is that an early voter will take a big chunk of the pool of money that goes to curation away from the post. Posts that have no early votes will have 25% of their payout go to curation, while posts with early votes will have less. This will lead later voters to prefer voting on posts with no early votes, and therefore authors will want to make sure their posts don't have any.
where are you getting that? When anyone other than the author votes a post earlier, it still will increase the % of the post payout that goes to the author. The hardfork is talking about removing the incentive to self vote. It is only the curation reward that an author gets currently for self voting before 30 minutes that is going to be returned to the reward pool under the new hardfork.
Ok thanks.
You do understand all this is only for the self voter right? Another user who comes along and upvotes a post earlier is actually helping the author... and this hardfork is not changing that...
This is incorrect. It applies to all of the curation rewards that are currently going to the author, who will now be capped at 75%. See https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/1874
Ah thanks - the blog posting was not worded very well on the steemit blog - it seemed like they were talking about just making it so you don't earn curation from self vote, and returning that specifically to reward pool. Which seems like the best solution - early votes by others (not the author) should still increase the % of total post payout that goes to author, while curation reward from an author's own early self vote should go to reward pool. I still strongly disagree with your proposal to just return all of it to the curation reward pool of the post in question, as that would incentivize other users to vote on posting that has large self votes to get a share of that extra curation $ - we don't want to encourage people to upvote posting that already has huge self votes. That is still incentivizing self voting.
Then bot votes and dummy account votes would still count and the change would be essentially meaningless.
That's not my actual proposal, by the way, it's just one of several simplified methods that would serve better than what they've implemented. Mine is here, and avoids that problem.
all fund in the rewards pool are not used in a day, there is a constant supply being added and taken away. if the rewards pool is not drained so much every day and there is a larger pool, I believe this will have an impact in the future on investors. Investors = ( or should =) better steem price = better for everyone, including the people I vote for and dont vote for.
And no I do not like to see people unhappy.
I'm reasonably certain that the amount of rewards distributed over a given time cannot be changed by how anyone votes. (Outside of the weird edge-case where no posts have any upvotes at all.) "Returned to the pool" doesn't stick more money into it to be spent later, it redistributes that money across the existing votes.
This hits the nail on the head exactly @tcpolymath
Isn't this what the self-votes at 1 minute are doing at present with regards to the curation that can be earned by others voting on the post?
I tend to avoid voting on posts voted in the first minute, particularly by larger voters.
It is, but right now authors like that because the extra money goes to them. The change will make it so authors dislike it, and will want to discourage people from upvoting them early.
You're the example case here: right now, authors are fine with your vote being discouraged, because of the way the extra curation is distributed. But in HF20, the fact that you are discouraged from voting will mean something to them, because they get the same from every vote no matter when it's cast. So getting a minute-zero vote and not yours is worth less to them than getting that same vote at minute fifteen and also yours later.
Which means that they'll want every vote to come in at fifteen or later if at all possible.
It will also discourage the REAL curators as their VP will be spent for the reward pool instead of the authors they curate as the content was of high quality