You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The White Paper is not Holy, let's move on.
That sound reasonable Matt, won't argue against it. I'm simply saying that if the culture change does not go along with that, then the "colluders" will find a way to "collude".
Granted I'm being a bit ridiculous, but lets assume a whale called @metoowhale sees, observers that many accounts are creating sock puppets, not interacting for real and voting on themselves with 10 sock puppets abusing the quadratic rewards...
What is @metoowhale going to do? He is going to "me too" with his giant SP, because he/she would be missing out on the cake.
So, yeah, that could be it, but only if enough people subscribe to the cultural change.
That's what's happening now.
Under quadratic rewards one's Mvests confer more weight (up OR down) based on the current size of the payout.
So if an undeserving 'analyst' for example, were to be disproportionately rewarded for his efforts, downvoting his payout by 50% would only require 25% as much as the power expended in upvoting it.
Given the choice between upvoting their own low value crap 50c, or downvoting somebody else's low value crap by 50c, people clearly choose the former.
Given the choice between upvoting their own low value crap 5c, or downvoting somebody else's low value crap by $5, people might be more inclined to choose the latter.
That was, as I understand, the justification for quadratic rewards in the first place.
If this was the case, this is the first time it was explained to me so clearly. Which makes me speculate that many don't understand it at all.
Is there a way to confirm this?
Sorry, do you mean the maths?
5 x 5 = 25
10 x 10 = 100
As the weight doubles (from 5 to 10), the payout quadruples (from 25 to 100)
If you upvote 10 and I then downvote 5, despite only having half your weight, I've taken 75% off the payout.
No yes, I get it... I understood it... I'm simply stating that, this would be the proposed HF idea.
Which by the way, makes me request something from you.
Would it be too ballsy ('merican word here) to ask you to make one of your explanation videos on how flags would work better under this system, making it stupid simple for people to understand.
The focus being on flags, and policing abuse...
Gotcha :)
I don't remember where I read that it was the plan, but it was definitely official, I think perhaps steemitblog?
They're going to cut the penalty period from 30 to 15 mins, and return lost curation rewards to the pool, instead of sending it back to the author.
I touched on the amplifying nature of quadratic rewards in that video, including that stat that 25% of the total weight could reduce the payout by 50%; but I didn't go into a great deal of detail.
We'll probably see more discussion around quadratic rewards soon anyway, as it looks like Ned will be bringing it back when he brings in account based (rather than stake based) voting for an SMT he's hinted at.
If that's the goal it would be much easier to just multiply the value of flags. And you wouldn't have to make whales more dominant and the rest of us more dependent to do it.
Multiply the value of flags for everyone?
(So if a hundred of us downvoted a whale, he could retaliate with devastating 1% downvotes and wipe out all of our $5 and $10 posts for the next month?)