RE: Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem
I think the "selfless/selfish" behaviour terms are not at all times representative and can be misleading so I'd prefer to avoid using them. With regards to the notion of free money, I'm having some reservations using the term as well, especially considering consistently high rewards some users are getting whether or not if PoB is effectively involved. But that'd be an argument of semantics in relation to behavioural expectations, not what reality actually is since we aren't 1-dimensional agents. I'd agree the leak is more flatly distributed across the board, unlike n2 (or any superlinear curve) which congregates such leaks into something more manageable.
Linear could be proven to be a better system than n2 but so far, no such proof exist. Proof that n2 is preferable to linear exist and have never been disproven.
Proof to be a better system in what terms? I guess there are different expectations all around. To me, linear has the shape of a fair consumer product, in that an acquisition and exercise of SP at any level isn't shortchanged by the system in favour of those with higher SP. I'd be pretty pissed off under n2 if I purchase or earn 100 SP, but someone with 10x more SP has 100x influence when it comes to stake-weighted voting, instead of a linear 10x. However, n2 does have its qualities, and on balance, I'd prefer taking only the best parts of it which are useful and hence, settling for something between linear and n2, even if only composed of multiple linear approximations to form something like, maybe, n1.5.
To repeat what I've posted previously about "slight superlinear":-
Firstly, to reduce spam which is evident under linear. Secondly, slight superlinear makes it necessary for all voted content to have a minimum of at least one other peer validation from higher SP users in order for more substantial capital to be distributed, unlike zero validations at the moment. Thirdly, to congregate and amplify the best and worst voting behaviours for community self-regulation, instead of having them distributed flatly and widely like what we're experiencing on the network at the moment. Fourthly, to make vote bidding price discovery less predictable.
I think @trafalgar has commented with some better explanation and insights. So far, that's my take on it..
update: edited a little to clear up some wording..
A sinking boat vs a floating one.
The current system favors those who do engage in absolutely no work, aka proof-of-no-brain-needed. How could it be worst?
That would be irrational. Linear devalue the whole platform and thus Steem.
Regarding slightly superlinear, I think it would only slow down the desirable effects of superlinear.
I think a good way to fix steem's voting problem is to give big votes to all the guys from Portugal who have an idiot photo as a profile photo and whose nickname starts with a "d" and ends with "nunes"
see how wise I am?
Indeed..
Not sure if I'm willing to concede here with that statement, but I get what you mean. It'll be a hardsell for anyone who can put their fingers together in figuring they're being shortchanged immensely for the system.
Yup, our proposal here is an in-between solution for the individual and the collective. I think there's good evidence that n2 did not work as well as expected. Sure it amplifies and contrasts contributions to the greatest degree, but are users generally happy? Maybe in a purely elite community. I'd give it to Dan for figuring out that linear is highly undesirable in first pass though. That's certainly not something that's obvious to most developers.
Let's make it n^99999 so no one has any influence at all, good idea dude, you must be great at economics and by your suit I can see that you know what people on modern social media are engaged by.
Or we could just decide that 2 is clearly the ideal power to use in terms of economics and incentives. What a convenient coincidence that n^2 is easy to calculate in integer code using
rshares*rshares!I'm sure everyone in the >99% at least secretly likes >1.
Steemit users circumstances vary. Some post "full-time" and need an income from this and also to cover expenses involved in making good posts. We like to believe blockchain social media has a long term future. So with a modest account myself I would rather give the votes away at least in the forseeable future to encourage Steemit user number growth. Hopefully the Steem price will rise sufficiently one day to make super capital gains.