You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: ✍️ The Priest and The Contest-Monkey - Episodes 5 & 6: Determining Breakout Points
Also commenting from my cell, so this will be brief. General topics that occur to me for later follow-up (if time allows):
- Of course I'm back to the rewards algorithm, and the ease of overvaluing a post. If Steem has an Achilles Heel, I think this is it.
- Recognizing authentic content, vs authentic people (looking for inclusion of relevant quotes and links between accounts, articles and sites can help with this?)
- The "ideal" whale's job is self-contradictory: be selective and also spread rewards widely
- Time, scale, measuring and automating.
- How does somethinglike Dunbar's number apply to curation?
- This is not unique to us. All social media has content farms. I think the typical response is building an AI system to detect as much as possible before people need to be involved.
- Ways to use the following/follower graph as an hint about authenticity?
- Contests, in particular, create incentives that favor sybil posting.
I know how long I spent just on pieces of this, but I can only guess at how much longer you were digging into it, so thank you for doing that.
You are right about overvaluing posts. There is no point in chasing each specific case if the system allows overvaluing posts. STEEM has many clones. Most of them try to position themselves favorably against STEEM, noting that they do not have bid bots, only manual curators.
I think the best option would be to make manual curation more profitable than automatic and more profitable than content creation (for large share holders). The current algorithm had this goal, but in practice it doesn't work very well.
I've seen that attempts to make manual curation more profitable than delegating to bid bots have already been made. But it didn't work. This is a complex question that requires long and thorough brainstorming. A special discussion thread could be created for this. But all this has no meaning. Even if we managed to invent the perfect formula, these changes would not be implemented.
Despite everything, I believe that we need to involve all those who are willing and still reach a common opinion on what needs to be changed to implement the principle of fairer distribution of rewards. Then, having a ready-made decision, perhaps someday the appropriate circumstances will arise for the implementation of this decision.
Compare the time spent on manual curation vs automatic curation and the cost of human time, and the cost of possible Steem rewards -- then, the answer becomes obvious which way development WILL NOT GO.. imo.
By the end of it, I think I knew some of them better than they know themselves 🤣
Seriously though... you're almost certainly correct that the reward mechanism is at the heart of this...
Perhaps the solution would be as simple as never displaying voting power or who has voted on a post, thus reducing the incentive to chase the vote of a whale. Imagine that. Perhaps this is the seed of my next post.
Or it will lead to even more fraud, since nothing will be visible immediately, and in order to expose the fraudster, you will have to dig even more in dirty laundry.
Besides that -- we are on the blockchain, right? The info may be hidden within the Steemit front-end interface, but still be visible in the block inspector, like the steemworld. Right?
I think you are right.
Good point 😪
sounds quite curious! that idea never came even once to my mind.