You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bloggers: Would you mind sharing 50/50 with those that upvote you?
Because 33% less is a lie? You can't look at one post when the whole reward system is recursive, and 33% less compounded weekly turns out to be a hell of a lot.
See this post for how much this really hurts metacuration efforts. We're talking about 60% less total distribution to lower-level accounts over five years. That sucks.
Also, I will hard-resist non-consensual rewards changes for as long as I'm here just on principle.
It is certainly not that and your inflammatory and mistaken rhetoric is not helpful. A reduction from 75% to 50% is a 33% reduction. Period. If you want to argue on the basis of long term compounding (with a bunch of unstated assumptions), then why is 75% even a good starting point at all? Why not 80% or 100%.
There is nothing about the status quo that is optimal. It's just a somewhat arbitrary set up that we have based on a series of (often poorly-considered) decisions that got us here.
Also, if you really, really want to give away more of your stake, why don't you just use the transfer function and do so? Isn't that what you were suggesting with UI-assisted curation. No one is stopping you.
There have been countless rewards changes. I'd guess roughly half of the 20 hard forks have involved some form of rewards changes. Why are those okay, but somehow we have to stop right here and future ones are not? It's all a work in progress. I'm pretty sure you will find yourself in a very extreme minority if you claim that the current set of reward pool rules and mechanisms is ideal and should never change.
It's almost like I used an adjective there or something. Once you have a significant user-base, when you iterate it has to be with the consent of the users you're affecting, or you alienate them and destroy your growth. But you seem to be totally interested in forcing user growth with spurious economic theories rather than actually doing anything to support the people who are already engaging in the behaviors you want to see.
I've seen this a lot in organizations: they're blessed with a strong crop of early adopters, because early adoption tends to be when driven, dynamic people arrive. And they decide that they can just throw them by the wayside because there will always be more.
There won't always be more. However much you optimize your algorithm the people you are attacking now will never be replaceable.
You mean non-consensual? I'm not sure how that works.
All of the forks are voted by stakeholders via witness votes (and by mechanism that requires a super-majority of 17 or 18 witnesses; in practice it is usually all). It's pretty likely there was at least one stakeholder aka user dissenter for every hard fork (for whatever reason, rational or otherwise). In fact the last fork had one well-known witness and significant stakeholder who dissented. So in that sense none of them are non-consensual and all of them are.
Some blockchains (Bitcoin best known of course) have an ethos of essentially never making these sorts of changes, on the theory that the benefits of (just about) any changes is always outweighed by the cost of disruption. Steem does not have that. If we wanted it, okay, but suddenly choosing this half-baked setup as the switching point seems bizarre at best. That said, I'm sympathetic to the position of not making changes when their benefits are not clear and significant. In this case we probably disagree on that conclusion.
(For one thing, I would point out that there isn't any growth so we can't "destroy [y]our growth" as you suggest. There are many signups but attrition is such that the active user base is not growing. There are real problems here that need to be solved by real improvements. Trying to protect what we have, be that user base or (non-) growth, is not enough.)
Maybe this change will or won't happen, but there will certainly be more. They will or won't be non-consensual depending on your perspective as discussed above.