Mathematical Incentives Only Work, If The Stakeholders Use Them
I'm typing this while listening to Aggroed on PAL discuss HF21 and the argument is now very stale to me.
Due to our distribution level, the mathematical changes only matter if the values of the people with the most stake act in the best interest of the platform.
Change the math however you want, but it only works if the large stakeholders actually curate. If they had been fighting abuse before we wouldn't be in this situation. If they think the Downvote pool helps them to do that and changes their behavior it would help. If their behavior continues to be all about stacking Steem faster than the other stakeholders, it will not help.
Marketing and PR would help. Attention would help.. Getting our name and project visibility would help, but Math alone fixes nothing.
I'm concerned it will turn off end users, but marketing could offset that.
In other words, Math or not, it is humans that make or break Steem there are lots of ways to attact users and if the inflationary Steem isn't used to create value it is just a devaluation of all of our holdings.
The math is not catastrophic nor is it a Silver Bullet.
At some point, the fight gets bigger than topic, discuss it but also keep it in perspective.
We can hardfork the blockchain; but we can't hardfork the brains.
Spot on
Pre- and Post-cisely. If only more people realized this. The EIP is a bunch of smoke when greed is at the core of whatever math is applied.
It all could be a solution if it changes behavior, but I'm tired of the this will fix everything mode.
It will not fix anything.
@whatsup, I am 57 years old and one thing I have learned along the way is that when people start using complex mathematical formulas and rarely used words to explain something it is because what they are trying to sell does not really live up to expectations.
Sometimes, I am increasingly mystified, that, no matter how euridite, and eloquent I am, the multitudes seem to be obfuscating otherwise simplified enigmatic formulae.
My brain just forked after reading this
@whatsup,
Actually I don't know why they came up with this topic in this HF21, we have a lot more to focus, unless fight for these kind of things!
Cheers~
Many top witnesses/large stakeholders- "Pay me more from the pool and I will stop self voting and running bid bots. I just need it to be worth my time. I promise I will stop the bad behavior I claim this will stop."
I get the sense their fingers are crossed behind their backs as they mutter this, hoping the cheerleaders will keep the fuss to a minimum until after they have implemented it.
When I joined in 2016, I was under the illusion that capitalism and free market principles would cause Steemit to self moderate itself to success, seeing as how large stakeholders would have a clear financial incentive to act in the best interest of the platform.
Hahahah. Yeah.
"Hahahaha. Yeah." is right!! I'll add my chortles to the general mirth ... as soon as this happens.
The theory is still holy! How dare you let reality distract from that! Infidel!
oops
But the theory on paper works!(TM)
;)
Spot on.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I don't know what to think anymore, in one hand it really should be 50/50 and downvotes and all the stuff... Now, if the authors don't earn as much as they value themselves... They can post to facebok. As long as there is a core of witnesses, developers and stinc development steem will attract users. After all we have been decreasing in numbers of active people for a long time but lots of them are coming back for one reason or another.
Marketing is a must, we are developing a project to hit SPS as soon as possible.
Math is one thing, behavior, greed and short-term thinking is another - and as that joke goes for physicists... Steem is not a spherical chicken in a vacuum.
Or self publish as some of us have and will continue to do. :)
Wonder why a slider isn't proposed allowing the authors to decide what the split would be? Then the people posting pictures of their breakfast could allow the curators 50-75% and rake in all the profit curators who care little for quality and more for payout.
Better joke about economists; physicists are more practical than you think.
It also would help by not having 50/50 rewards. Why write any posts when you can just buy Steem, power it up, and auto upvote anything blindly, or join a curation trail.
Many curation trails are just automatic and have no manuall curators. @informationwar and maybe 6 or 7 others are essentially the only ones who do that. Its more profitable and less time consuming if we just set it to autoupvote anything in #informationwar, but we don't because we are just purists in that sense of wanting to follow the spirit of the "code is law" that is "curating".
Many don't follow the spirit of "code is law" that is what curation is supposed to be, a discerning eye and discriminating for upvoting. I think 50/50 rewards gives more incentives against ACTUAL curation, the definition of curation.
Also, 50/50 places equal value on upvotes than on content creation. With 75/25 it was a 3x fold placed on content cration being the most rewarding aspect. Does clicking an upvote button or joining an autoupvote trail really worth 50% of the value? I don't think so at all, doesn't make sense logically.
I guess what I don't understand is, how does EVERYONE not see this?