You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Scalability, Content Quality and Centralization - An open discussion on an incentivized downvote system
Why don't we remove the Lottery effect? Currently if I where to up-vote an 3K post that post could gain 1$-2$ while if I where to up-vote a new post with a few cents(0.5$) . I'm luck if that post would move 1 or 2 cents at most. In my opinion that 3K post should be getting the same amount of my votes affect (or at least similar) than the newly created 30min to 1h old post.
I think you're right. From the whitepaper:
I'm sadly not sure if the "lottery effect" is really something they'd like to see removed... It seemed strange to me after a first read that this is what they were going for. Not sure that having a system that "plays on the same psychology that casinos use to keep people gambling" is really something we should strive for. Aiming to have fairer economy in which its users don't feel "tricked" would seem more reasonable to me.
Why are you voting on the 3K post at all??? It doesn't benefit you. Even though the post reward may go up $1-2, your curation reward will still be tiny because you are a very late voter. I don't think people understand how things actually work and that is a large part of the problem
For what it's worth, I sometimes vote on a $3k-type post so I can actually see my vote make a difference for the author. It's cool that even as a small fish I can participate and help them get a couple bucks.
At first I was really trying to maximize the value of my upvotes. I was all focused on getting in early on the posts destined for the top. At my levels of steem power though, all of my curation rewards are way less than ten cents. So for now, I get enough satisfaction from seeing an author's post get a boost that I go for it sometimes.
Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!
You bet!
its much more encouraging if you can change the payout with some cents then voting for something new and see no effect at all (except if you have tons of steem power).
Therefore a more linear payout algorithm would encourage more users to vote for articles they like, even if they have not much votes yet. Self votes I don't see that much as a problem. With a transparent blockchain you should easily find out the black sheep's that selfvote all the time.
I suggest that you yourself can decide where your inflated coins are going. If you don't use your coins in lets say 30 days they can be distributed the same way as now. With this in place the coins could be instantly paid out with every vote. If you have the feeling that it is your coins that you distribute you would also take much more care how to use them.
For example you have 10 dollars worth of steem power. With an inflation of currently lets say 1% per day and 5% of that for blogging rewards you have 10 dollar * 100%*5% = 0.5 cents a day to distribute. If you don't distribute for 30 days you have 15 cents to distribute. If you still dont distribute them every day 0.5 cents are distributed trough all participants.