RE: Stake-Weighted vs Account-Based Voting: Is the Trending Page About to Change!?
I fully share the desire of all the good people of this community to make the rewards system here more representative of the quality, and not the longevity/cronyism of the poster. Ned's latest comments in Korea are very promising, although they need to apply to steemit.com, and not just on these SMTs. However, the options for rewarding our contributors represent a continuum. At present we are at one end of the spectrum--rewarding longevity, and ignoring quality. Ned's "solution' (one person-one vote) represents the other end of that same spectrum. IMHO, it would be as unworkable as the current situation.
Right now, with all the bots posting and these 3rd-world mail-order bride memberships, one-man/one-vote will STILL result in poor content being unfairly rewarded. What we need is a middle ground--a weighting system that (for example) gives 70+ reputation members 7 times the voting weight of a 10-rep member, 3.5 times that of a 20-rep...and so on. A 60+ reputation member would get 6 times the weight of a 10-rep, 3 times that of a 20-rep, etc. a 50+ rep member would get 5 times the weight of a 10, rep, 2.5 times the weight of a 20-rep, etc. I think you get the idea. This algorithm could, of course be made even more exacting, and the weighting is just an example.
Still, it would be a vast improvement over the current system where someone like Haejin can post an article with average ( or even below average) content and get $500-1000 SBD, whereas an excellent article by a newbie might get nothing, or get his measly $.01 or $.02 "dusted."
The reason the U.S.A. has been so successful (except for the past 40 years, or so) was because our government was a blending of the spectrum of possible leadership/reward structures. We chose the middle path (a republic) between the opposing tyrannies of monarchy and absolute democracy. The Steemit community must do the same.
Egalitarianism and meritocracy must be our watch words as we strive, rightly, to put the best content forward as possible.
You bring up some great points. I like the idea of using reputation as a factor in determining voting weight. I've actually never even considered that before. Of course, people can also build their rep by using upvote bot accounts... but I think that rep should factor in somewhere. Maybe even a combination of rep + stake + amount of votes.
Sure, Brandon. Like I said, we need a middle ground between the current system and one-vote, one-account. It could certainly be a combination (algorithm) of a variety of factors, for sure. As you rightly pointed out on the video just now, that is ripe for abuse, and would be as bad, or worse than the current system.
I really think we need to get Ned thinking about this for Steemit.com, and not just on these other spinoff ideas/platforms.
I agree. It's like Steemit was originally the guinea pig for the Steem blockchain and was the testing grounds to prove out the concept. And now it's almost like SMTs have assumed that role. I think we'll see many changes coming to Steemit.com in the future as the community continues to voice these ideas for change. It's just a matter of the witnesses getting together, and coming to a consensus about how we should proceed.
The ability to change/adapt with community input is what makes this place revolutionary, and potentially a major, major threat to the"big boy" platforms out there. PLEASE, if you get wind of any undercurrent among the whales/witnesses for moving the rewards system in the direction we're talking about, do another video on it (and try squeezing it in well before your trip.) BE WELL and safe, btw...and have a great trip!
Thanks @mepatriot, I definitely will. I appreciate it! :)