RE: Changing the Code to Incentivize Curation
Those who create content and do more work will get less, while those who do no work and sell their votes will get more. Does that seem right?
No, it doesn't as I have been vocal about on a few posts i have seen recently on this. I spend 10-20 hours research on many of my posts, and the idea that those reading it should get the same amount as I is insane. I sometimes sift through a lot of lies and crap to find what I believe to be credible sources. I can only imagine what artists, musicians and such can think of this, the idea that those enjoying their talent deserves the same cut as they do for enjoying their talent.
I like your idea, sadly the fact is this is a thinly veiled move to grab more of the pool by those who have been profiting from the vote bots and seen the downturn due to lower valuation (and for awhile no SBD being printed). They don't seem to understand (or maybe just don't care) that most here make jack on curation due to dust, and using Jethro math Not times NOT is NOT.
Under this proposal, I stand to lose more from one post than I would gain from doubling curation rewards. And unlike many here, i love the idea of a gifting economy and since being here have donated roughly 20% of my earnings. The proposed loss would evaporate that from my abilities here, as I would like some left for me after paying the taxes next year on my earnings here. Greedy people gonna greed though, no matter the cost to others.
Did you notice that they want to push the idea of flagging, yet I still here crickets about adding the ability to downvote witnesses. Wonder of that would be a game changer for those who are witnesses yet don't get the large votes as those entrenched in the top get?
I don't think trafalgar or smooth are in it for the greed, far from it. I see kevinwong as being frustrated and giving into the philosophy of Bakunin when it comes to electing poor judges and voting for the most corrupt characters so as not to prolong the immorality of the State and outrage the populous to act, whether he's doing it wittingly or not I do not know.
The suggestion of incentivized downvoting is a great one, but honestly, the whale experiment showed us one thing above all else: that major stakeholders care and in combining efforts they can make a big difference. I remember my vote went from less than a fraction of a cent to about 10 cents during that time. The community was very engaged despite the low price. This could happen again but the downvoting is not enough. If we dissuade stake splitting and incentivize stake concentration we will kill two birds with one stone: delegations wouldn't be as profitable under non-linear (n^1.2) as concentrating stake, and bidbots won't have any way to calculate the risk and rewards with certainty, while the later is great, the former is the most important I believe. Along with that, free downvotes ought to be delegated so in turn a large stake can crash without effort on anyone using bots and cancel that out. These changes are minimal in amending code and based on the whale experiment I think it will allow people to have a new-found appreciation for downvoting/flagging which could be done so that it won't affect anyone's reputation if the community delegates to an account with no reputation and preferable downvotes at the last moment before payout based on a curated list by a dedicated team that's kept off the chain to avoid any retaliation where people can post links to abuses and the team can update a database with them while the bot will do the rest.
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't know any of the top witnesses to know the motivations and can only base my conclusions on the affect the proposed 50/50 idea would have on my account and those I follow who have not been as fortunate as myself in finding support. It seems obvious to me that this would increase the take of those at the upper scale at the expense of those at the lower end. Perhaps it is not so obvious to those at the upper end, however I find it more credible that they do know it would increase their share of the pool and at whose expense it would be at. I saw another user (@glenalbrethsen) make a comment that summed up my feelings on this proposed reward cut they would have me receive.
As for the flagging, I will admit I have never been much of a flagger, only doing it to one person who has a grudge against canadiancoconut and familyprotection who couldn't stop trolling month after month. I will admit I am in a bubble here, having found my favorites for my feed and finding new people of interest from their comment sections. Which is how I found you as well. When I log in, it is more of a mind to read posts that interest me, curate them and when I am ready to post after researching to do that as well. And to support causes that I align with. I don't see myself changing this approach regardless of any proposed changes to the flagging system. I have enough people in my life who I oppose to desire seeking them out here. For me, there are enough blessings here to spend my time on. You being one of them. I appreciate your knowledge, even though at times it falls far into my ignorance zone. You are one I wish would post more on subjects as you have much you could share that deserve light stronger than in comment sections. You are one of the brightest I have encountered here on the platform.
People will have more incentive to curate organically more, meaning profits should even out if not increase for authors as people are engaged in curating others more, especially if the combination of nonlinear and free flags goes through. You see it as losing a third of your potential rewards and making it more profitable for others to bidbot but you need to consider that the witnesses and major stakeholders, for the most part, aren't in it for the short sprint to the bank. I don't know if you were around when @abit and @smooth among others (ftg I think, maybe even berntheburn) were all either actively flagging another dolphin, orca, and mostly whale votes in order to distribute the power to the masses but it was by almost all accounts a success. The problem at that time wasn't bidbots, as Bernie basically capitulated on the idea first with @buildawhale or some similar bot that worked on a "lottery" by sending it one Sbd and having a chance of getting anything from 3% to 50% vote, the numbers are probably off but that's beside the point, the problem was the curve of n^2 which meant someone with 100 SP had 100 times more voting power than someone with 10 SP, while someone with 1000 SP had 10kx the effective SP compared to someone with 10 SP and the experiment dealt quite effectively with that disparaging gap in power without waiting on Stinc to actually change that. Most of the large stakeholders do have the foresight to see that by devaluing curation they effectively shoot themselves in the foot. Yes, some have caved in and seemingly abandoned principles for the FOMO and who's to say that their 'earnings' won't be used to curate instead of being dumped on the exchange? Ultimately they aren't dumb and they want to see their investment baby grow up and mature as many dropped their life savings into the promise of this genial manifestation of incentivized/tokenized social media. It doesn't require faith that they will use their SP to curate if Curation is more incentivized instead of Selling it, especially if nonlinear is implemented which dissuades stake splitting and consequently delegating to bots. If they have an incentive to flag, instead of wasting their VP, then it's a trifecta which bots won't be able to defeat. If we take it a step further and allow people to delegate the free flags then we could return almost all self-voting, shitposting to the reward pool/distribute it along the rewarded posts evenly, thereby increasing the value of content platform-wide.
Your concern about not earning as much because of the cut into author rewards is short in considering the intent of the proposal for the assumption that this is a money-grubbing scheme. Yet the proposal isn't pushed by characters that readily support bots and as I mentioned, kevinwong is wittingly or not exasperating the situation so that the issue of bots is addressed because you don't see bot-owners jumping at this proposal and rightly so, they don't want any light shined on them because invariably everyone recognizes that by invalidating curation the whole system implodes. In reality, curation is as important if not more so than content, and without a functioning curation, content becomes a joke as it will compete on the level of the biggest pocket and the shitpost farming that will dominate the spotlight.
Posted using Partiko Android
You prefer a community flagging effort that is managed by a centralized off-chain dedicated team, than an automated in-chain algorithm that determines who is a bidbot and removing rewards for authors that get voted by them? Anyone who delegates to a flag account, will be known, and they can have retaliation applied to them. Applying a change to the code takes care of it without anyone needing to put a target on their back.
There's no way to automatically determine whos a bid bot as I tried to point that by asking how the consensus will form for who's a bot and who's not and will it be determined through stake or account voting or a combination. Retaliation can be countered by upvotes. A simpler way would be to burn your free flags and they will be distributed among your witness votes, with witnesses then being able to funnel the effort into one account creating a massive stake with enough weight to deal not only with bidbots but all self-voting abuses.
Posted using Partiko Android
Promoting more flagging, and rewarding it, is a horrible idea as far as I'm converned. Anyone can flag others and get paid to do it. It's a recipe for disaster that feeds trolls and bullies. I don't agree with downvoting witnesses either. Anyone with lots of SP can have a grudge and effectively remove someone else in the lower ranks from being a witness at all.
I think this way of re-allocating rewards for posts that get upvoted from vote buying by vote sellers is a good way to get everyone else who doesn't rewarded. There are just some technical issue with implementing it, like determining who is a vote seller or bidbot to annul the rewards on a post and re-allocate it to the reward pool instead.
Flagging with a low rep bot that doesn't affect reputation and doing it at the last minute before payout, removing only the bought votes power will have exactly the same effect as your proposal and won't require code changes or centralization on the chain. It could simply be a community effort with the only change needed besides the free flags/stake is to be allowed to delegate those flags.
Posted using Partiko Android
That still requires a centralized account to do the work, and a centralized team to manage it, with delegated power from accounts that can be traced and retaliated against. The changes I would like to see are coded in and don't require anyone doing anything. The community is an ideal I like, but it isn't as fool proof as a coded change that just takes care of it all.
I too am not a fan of the flagging ( I have only used it on one account that was trolling both Family Protection and Informationwar), however I notice that they are good with it as long as it does not hit them where it hurts.
This feels to be about rewarding those with the highest stake (the top witnesses and their supporters) at the expense of the lower and middle class. What person of talent or person who researches deserves the same share of the rewards. I will use you as an example. You are a researcher/experimenter. No way do any of us (myself included) deserve the same cut you get % for benefiting from your time and effort. We already benefit from the 25%, and we benefit as well from your sifting and presenting your conclusions.
I would like to think the top witnesses would consider your idea if they think there is a problem here greater than their current decreased bidbot profits. However, it feels to me that is really where they and their largest supporters are seeing the problem that needs corrected.