RE: Change Curation Reward System On Steem Blockchain / DISCUSSION
I think the curation rewards need to be fixed, but not by removing benefits for early voting.
I have long advocated for implementation of a rewards distribution that's modeled after a second price auction. For example, here is an article that I wrote on the topic (with a simulation that was based on HF19/20 linear rewards curve.)
Google uses 2nd price auctions for their advertising sales because the winning strategy is to bid the actual perceived value. Google found that it was the best way to find market values for their advertising. I think that similar principles would apply to value-discovery for Steem's posts.
On Steem, for good curation, we need voters to self-regulate in 2 directions: (i) Vote a post up to it's actual value; and (ii) Don't vote a post up past it's actual value (according to the voter's perception).
Rewards for early voting encourage people to vote a post up to it's actual value, but we have no mechanism that motivates them to avoid overvaluing a post. Hence, we have numerous over-valued posts sucking rewards away from numerous under-valued posts.
The downvote was the intended mechanism for avoiding overvaluation, but that has clearly failed. In response, I don't think we should take away the incentive that seems to be working. I think we should add a new incentive for downward self-regulation.
IMO, with a mechanism like that, downvotes would only be needed for SPAM and illegal content, or maybe not at all.
The response has been that it's not "abuse proof", but that's the wrong question. Nothing is abuse proof. The question should be whether it's better than what we have now, and my guess is that it would be far superior.
Whatever is done, it should be guided by actual economic theory and game theory, not just someone's "gut feeling". We have a history of making changes like this based on intuition and then changing course every year or two. Maybe the SPS should be used to fund an analysis by expert professionals so we can do it once and do it right.
Hi! And thanks again for your valuable contribution to the discussions!
I am interested in that model, but also seems complicated to explain to the average user/investor.
I also feel that we can not make a full abuse proof system but we surely can work towards that. Is it better then it is right now? Yes, then let's change it and work from there. (not saying that we need to update based on impulsiveness without getting serious economic advice)
Self-regulatory systems are key, but also simplicity.
We have discussed the question: What is abuse? A few months back. And everyone comes with a different answer. For some, code is law and nothing is abuse. Some think voting yourself 10 times at 100% is abuse.
A balance between not putting restrictions on users, cause face it, who like that? - And incentives by rewarding users how we want them to behave.
What is wrong with: Your own vote is worth 1$, 50cents goes to the author, 50% to you? You just get what your vote is worth. It gives a clear indication of your earnings without taking guessing in the equation.
Thanks, I am happy this gets so much attention, wasn't expecting that!
To accomplish this, I think that you'd have to eliminate the reward for early voters and also the super-linear rewards curve. With a super-linear rewards curve, my vote on a $100 post is worth more than the same vote on a $1 post. If you eliminate the early voting incentive but leave the super-linear curve, everyone will just vote for the posts at the top of the trending page.
The problem with removing both is that if you do this, the voter doesn't care what post they vote on. They get the same reward if they vote for a great post or if they vote for the first thing they see. And so, we wind up with a blockchain full of (even more) self-voted SPAM. We saw it already with the linear rewards curve. People will just make 10 vacuous posts per day, vote for those, and collect both author and curation rewards from their votes. If the community responds by downvoting self-votes, then people will just hide behind alt accounts.
The reward for early voting encourages voters to vote for posts that were written by other people - instead of just self voting - because high payouts are possible if the voter correctly guesses the posts that will get additional votes. And this is the one incentive that we do see working as designed.
I agree that abuse is subjective. Some things are clearly abusive, others are more ambiguous. If we, eventually, construct the right incentive system, it shouldn't matter. The goal is to find incentives that will drive curators to appraise and reward all posts according to their relative perceived value. By reverting to content-indifferent voting, I think that removing the early voting reward would drive things in the opposite direction.
I agree with your other comment that Steem's fall from #3 in market cap to #130 is far more severe than the general bear market in cryptocurrency, and I also agree with you that the curation rewards distribution needs to be revisited, so thank you for initiating the discussion.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if there are any developers available to Steemit or the witnesses to make blockchain level changes at the moment, so it may be a purely hypothetical conversation for some time to come.
Thanks again, I really appreciate it.
Yes, most likely as it otherwise creates a bigger problem as you mentioned.
Yes, some people will likely do that, you just can't tackle everything but the goal is to make it better as it is. Spam does not get rewarded by the gross of the users and I may hope the most that are still here want a long-time income from this and see the benefits of doing good for the platform. Eventually, even the spam minded people benefit from a thriving ecosystem and a high STEEM price. :)
It is a complex matter, as solving one problem brings another. But we just got to figure out if it is better to have the Steem flow in 1 direction or distribute it more evenly.
Yeah my intention above all is to create awareness and get the juices flowing. Also to get more insight and knowledge as I do not have all the solutions, I only know my intentions ;)
I agree with you. Early rewarding encourages the user; by discarding the author for early rewarding because you want to set a limit, you discourage the initiative of competition and publication; besides, there is no reason to strive to improve the content because a voting average is maintained.
I agree with you, mostly with this one: