Actually the split would need to be by SP/rshares to be a collusive drain. A linear split doesn't accomplish the same thing. Instead, with a linear split it is in effect the larger SP holders voting to use the reward pool as funding for stake redistribution (a sort of faucet or airdrop). Arguably given the current state of the system and the importance of accomplishing a wider stake distribution that might be one of the most worthwhile things to use it for. Some protection against sybil attacking is needed in this case of course, or at least awareness of the possibility and vigilance to ensure it isn't happening (too much).
Both steemvoter and steemsports are systems that function in this manner and larger stakeholders who support them are doing exactly this. It is very much money-losing for those with large SP to vote for steemsports even if they enter the game (I usually don't). The whale votes in support of it can only be explained as a expressing preference over the best use of (a portion of) the reward pool, not as motivated by the relatively tiny return.
Instead, with a linear split it is in effect the larger SP holders voting to use the reward pool as funding for stake redistribution (a sort of faucet or airdrop).
Well, sort of. But the important distinction is that your faucet, at least in the case of steemsports, drips one out of every three drops into the same guys pocket. Now if that guy were actually a sibyl for one of the whales who supported it, that would be not great.
But even if its the whales are acting completely independently, that guy with the wet pockets has every financial incentive to make those drips as large as possible. The end game of this business model, from a pure business perspective, is to maximize the amount of money you distribute (arguably a good thing) in order to maximize your 30% cut.
When its something like steemsports, then yeah, its limited, to an extent, by how much the whales who back it are willing to support. However, i would argue that, especially if growth is relatively gradual, it can grow far larger than most of those supporting it would have envisioned originally without jeopardizing that. That is to say, it sprawls.
When its something like steemvoter, (especially when its something like steem voter that can change the rules and make that change 'opt-out') , or when the enterprise is actually a sibyl account for the whale that backs it, there is really no limit to how many "payout" posts they can do a day.
Not to mention, SS and SV are both using the votes they buy exceptionally inefficiently. If they were doing it the most efficient way, which im betting youve probably thought of, they would be assigning probably 10-20% of the reward pool by now. In my opinion, thats simply too much, even if they are robinhooding 2/3 of it back.
The whale votes in support of it can only be explained as a expressing preference over the best use of (a portion of) the reward pool, not as motivated by the relatively tiny return.
if im understanding right, I think you mean an even split is not an effective method for gaming the system. A linear split (where your payout was based on rshares, not just a flat number for everyone) would be exactly whats described in the whitepaper.
Yes, maybe I got the terminology mixed up. The importnant point being that an "even split" (as you now call it) is what steemsports and (by your description but less directly) steemvoter are doing.
Here's how i would do it, without changing how the current system looks at all. ...id base how often you get to be a contributor on your SP and your voting on SS posts
That does very much change how the current system looks (and works). People don't get to be contributors based on their SP or voting. So you are full of it.
Its not intended to give the impression that they are a conspiracy, just that they can potentially function in the same GT exploitative manner as the one described.
Okay, then given that you explicitly "don't intend to" give the impression that steemsports or steemvoter are a conspiracy, how about dropping the whole witch hunt which implicitly does do exactly, whether you claim to intend it or otherwise? If and when there is an actual instance of such abuse, I'm interested in hearing about it. Innuendo and smear tactics, along with discussion of you would engage in a hypothetical (and obvious) exploitative scheme that is different from how steemsports and steemvoter actually work , I'm not interested in hearing about.
Okay, then given that you explicitly "don't intend to" give the impression that steemsports or steemvoter are a conspiracy, how about dropping the whole witch hunt which implicitly does do exactly, whether you claim to intend it or otherwise? If and when there is an actual instance of such abuse, I'm interested in hearing about it. Innuendo and smear tactics, along with discussion of you would engage in a hypothetical (and obvious) exploitative scheme that is different from how steemsports and steemvoter actually work , I'm not interested in hearing about.
Yeah, youre right. Where do i get off? Here I am annoying SS with with rocket-chat popups and sending them cryptic private messages, and all they want to do is mind their own business and just do their own thing. Im such an asshat.
Someone who doesnt want to be the subject of a witch hunt should not ride around on a broom, wear a conical hat and turn people into toads.
That said, my disclaimer was merely because of the use of the word consipracy, which has negative connotations that were not my intention.
I take it as a given that steemsports and SV would attempt to incentivize their larger voters. Because SS and SV are business. And the correct strategy for a business would be to provide such incentives. I don't believe this is evil (as the word conspiracy would imply to many), but it is exploitative. The nature of all business is exploitation.
You want a specific example?
To me the timing of this and the subsequent changes to the SS post format seems to indicate that, at least in the mind of SS, there was a degree of quid pro quo.
Do i believe that that quid pro quo was the reason for whales votes? No. I believe that the whales who vote/voted for it do so because they believe its a good idea.
But i believe that it was (an ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to sweeten the pot for their largest voters. From a GT perspective, that pot sweetner is really all that seperates the one model from the other.
So yes, my hypothetical is different from the above. But its only different in that I would go out of pocket more to offer better incentives to my best customers. Because thats how you run a business.
The key point which you flew by is that a linear split is not an effective method of gaming the reward pool, as long as it allows free entry, and continues to have support from larger stakeholders. Any small stakeholder can enter as free rider which destroys the economic value of the scheme (if it were a scheme in the first place) for anything other than redistribution.
When it comes down to it though, "sybil attacks" (arguable whether to even call it that) by (smart) whales probably won't be recognizable or likely detectable at all. The fact that large stakeholders can direct the reward pool to (direct and indirect) benefit is an almost inevitable consequence of the entire design of the platform (i.e. it is by design). Only if the larger share of the voting base agrees that rewarding blog posts is a good use of dilution (i.e. increases the value of the post-dilution stake) will it actually happen. There is no way to force the voters' hands.
just as a side note, the whole post above is how these things could be altered to function like the empty-post conspiracy described by @bitcoindoom and the white paper.
Its not intended to give the impression that they are a conspiracy, just that they can potentially function in the same GT exploitative manner as the one described.
Someone who doesnt want to be the subject of a witch hunt should not ride around on a broom, wear a conical hat and turn people into toads.
More innuendo. Someone who dresses as a witch and turns people into toads is a witch. Someone who dresses as a witch and does not a damn thing besides that is probably trick or treating, or going to a costume party, or a cosplaying. Responsible people leave them the hell alone and avoid forming or joining a mob unless (assuming actual witchcraft is actually bad, and mob rule is in such an instance acceptable) there is evidence of actual witchcraft.
To me the timing of this and the subsequent changes to the SS post format seems to indicate that
All I saw there was a routine looking-UFC post (with some annoying HTML markup so I didn't read it carefully). If you want to claim there is more to the story you are going to have to actually lay out a case.
FYI, Dan or Ned (can't remember which), up-voted a post for steemvoter once a long time ago. On my account, not steemvoters account. It explained the plan if I remembered correctly, and was a blog post that the steemvoters had voted on.
iirc, originally the plan wasn't to have users pay with voting on an empty post every day. As a matter of fact, iirc that was in the fine print in your website, and i was the one who first brought to light.
That said, your posts are abuse as described in the white paper. An upvote from ned or dan doesnt change that.
this. Also note that posts like the steem voter daily payout post are precisely the type of abuse that the downvote is there to combat.
A post where many accounts vote on it to increase its n^2 share of the reward, then split the proceeds linearly (as payment for the SV service)
Actually the split would need to be by SP/rshares to be a collusive drain. A linear split doesn't accomplish the same thing. Instead, with a linear split it is in effect the larger SP holders voting to use the reward pool as funding for stake redistribution (a sort of faucet or airdrop). Arguably given the current state of the system and the importance of accomplishing a wider stake distribution that might be one of the most worthwhile things to use it for. Some protection against sybil attacking is needed in this case of course, or at least awareness of the possibility and vigilance to ensure it isn't happening (too much).
Both steemvoter and steemsports are systems that function in this manner and larger stakeholders who support them are doing exactly this. It is very much money-losing for those with large SP to vote for steemsports even if they enter the game (I usually don't). The whale votes in support of it can only be explained as a expressing preference over the best use of (a portion of) the reward pool, not as motivated by the relatively tiny return.
Well, sort of. But the important distinction is that your faucet, at least in the case of steemsports, drips one out of every three drops into the same guys pocket. Now if that guy were actually a sibyl for one of the whales who supported it, that would be not great.
But even if its the whales are acting completely independently, that guy with the wet pockets has every financial incentive to make those drips as large as possible. The end game of this business model, from a pure business perspective, is to maximize the amount of money you distribute (arguably a good thing) in order to maximize your 30% cut.
When its something like steemsports, then yeah, its limited, to an extent, by how much the whales who back it are willing to support. However, i would argue that, especially if growth is relatively gradual, it can grow far larger than most of those supporting it would have envisioned originally without jeopardizing that. That is to say, it sprawls.
When its something like steemvoter, (especially when its something like steem voter that can change the rules and make that change 'opt-out') , or when the enterprise is actually a sibyl account for the whale that backs it, there is really no limit to how many "payout" posts they can do a day.
Not to mention, SS and SV are both using the votes they buy exceptionally inefficiently. If they were doing it the most efficient way, which im betting youve probably thought of, they would be assigning probably 10-20% of the reward pool by now. In my opinion, thats simply too much, even if they are robinhooding 2/3 of it back.
I don't necessarily disagree with this
[nested reply]
Yes, maybe I got the terminology mixed up. The importnant point being that an "even split" (as you now call it) is what steemsports and (by your description but less directly) steemvoter are doing.
That does very much change how the current system looks (and works). People don't get to be contributors based on their SP or voting. So you are full of it.
Okay, then given that you explicitly "don't intend to" give the impression that steemsports or steemvoter are a conspiracy, how about dropping the whole witch hunt which implicitly does do exactly, whether you claim to intend it or otherwise? If and when there is an actual instance of such abuse, I'm interested in hearing about it. Innuendo and smear tactics, along with discussion of you would engage in a hypothetical (and obvious) exploitative scheme that is different from how steemsports and steemvoter actually work , I'm not interested in hearing about.
Yeah, youre right. Where do i get off? Here I am annoying SS with with rocket-chat popups and sending them cryptic private messages, and all they want to do is mind their own business and just do their own thing. Im such an asshat.
Someone who doesnt want to be the subject of a witch hunt should not ride around on a broom, wear a conical hat and turn people into toads.
That said, my disclaimer was merely because of the use of the word consipracy, which has negative connotations that were not my intention.
I take it as a given that steemsports and SV would attempt to incentivize their larger voters. Because SS and SV are business. And the correct strategy for a business would be to provide such incentives. I don't believe this is evil (as the word conspiracy would imply to many), but it is exploitative. The nature of all business is exploitation.
You want a specific example?
To me the timing of this and the subsequent changes to the SS post format seems to indicate that, at least in the mind of SS, there was a degree of quid pro quo.
Do i believe that that quid pro quo was the reason for whales votes? No. I believe that the whales who vote/voted for it do so because they believe its a good idea.
But i believe that it was (an ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to sweeten the pot for their largest voters. From a GT perspective, that pot sweetner is really all that seperates the one model from the other.
So yes, my hypothetical is different from the above. But its only different in that I would go out of pocket more to offer better incentives to my best customers. Because thats how you run a business.
The key point which you flew by is that a linear split is not an effective method of gaming the reward pool, as long as it allows free entry, and continues to have support from larger stakeholders. Any small stakeholder can enter as free rider which destroys the economic value of the scheme (if it were a scheme in the first place) for anything other than redistribution.
When it comes down to it though, "sybil attacks" (arguable whether to even call it that) by (smart) whales probably won't be recognizable or likely detectable at all. The fact that large stakeholders can direct the reward pool to (direct and indirect) benefit is an almost inevitable consequence of the entire design of the platform (i.e. it is by design). Only if the larger share of the voting base agrees that rewarding blog posts is a good use of dilution (i.e. increases the value of the post-dilution stake) will it actually happen. There is no way to force the voters' hands.
just as a side note, the whole post above is how these things could be altered to function like the empty-post conspiracy described by @bitcoindoom and the white paper.
Its not intended to give the impression that they are a conspiracy, just that they can potentially function in the same GT exploitative manner as the one described.
[nested reply]
More innuendo. Someone who dresses as a witch and turns people into toads is a witch. Someone who dresses as a witch and does not a damn thing besides that is probably trick or treating, or going to a costume party, or a cosplaying. Responsible people leave them the hell alone and avoid forming or joining a mob unless (assuming actual witchcraft is actually bad, and mob rule is in such an instance acceptable) there is evidence of actual witchcraft.
All I saw there was a routine looking-UFC post (with some annoying HTML markup so I didn't read it carefully). If you want to claim there is more to the story you are going to have to actually lay out a case.
FYI, Dan or Ned (can't remember which), up-voted a post for steemvoter once a long time ago. On my account, not steemvoters account. It explained the plan if I remembered correctly, and was a blog post that the steemvoters had voted on.
So, I don't think your assumptions are correct.
iirc, originally the plan wasn't to have users pay with voting on an empty post every day. As a matter of fact, iirc that was in the fine print in your website, and i was the one who first brought to light.
That said, your posts are abuse as described in the white paper. An upvote from ned or dan doesnt change that.