You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Retaliatory Flagging, Apathy, Fear, and Determining Community Trust
If the trust level is just linked to an account then people can hop to new ones to restore their voting power pretty easily. Especially since the vesting schedule is so short now (I think that's one of the bigger mistakes that's been made).
There's a reason voting power should be tied to stake in the network rather than to some other property of the account. We need more people voting in support of long term value rather than just voting themselves and their cronies payouts for today.
Full vesting is 13 weeks and that is quite a lot of time to spend in order to cheat the system. People can also track transfers through the blockchain. Voting power would still be tied to stake in the network, but would only be penalized for a lack of trust from the network.
There are also penalties to switching accounts, you lose branding potential and a portion of your audience. If you are raking in the cash on one account and move to another, you will lose a lot of voting support unless you tell your fans to move to that account in that case, relevant parties can assign distrust to that new party.
We could also start in the opposite direction and have everyone distrusting each other to begin with. Then alternate accounts would start at 0. The only issue here is that we would disadvantage the smaller users and create an even steeper learning curve. Large users could gather trust relatively quickly and the smaller users would struggle to gain any. That's why I like starting at full trust and going backwards.
I don't really see a way to force people into long-term investing outside of increasing the vesting schedule, which locks up Steem for longer which may ward off new users. But maybe we don't want users that aren't committed to the health of the network.
People won't vote in a long-term way since it is more profitable to vote in the short term. There's a reason that most people struggle in debt and live in general mediocrity. They lack long term perspective and do not plan nor take the time to invest in the future. People are hardwired into instant gratification and instant rewards. They will vote for shit over quality every day of the week if the shit is more profitable. In order to fix that, we would need to completely revamp the curation system to realign profitability and desirable behavior.
In the original design the vesting schedule was 2 years and the rewards were nonlinear, so there was more incentive for consensus. I also think downvotes should be included in curation rewards.
The whole system depends on getting SP into the hands of people who vote with long term vision rather than for short term payouts. It's like a corporation with perpetual shareholder votes on whether to liquidate to pay dividends, or reinvest in the business. Control by those who just want the money now means death for the community.
The key point of your proposal seems to be giving people something to lose, but I'm not sure adding additional values to every account is necessary for that. What do you think of having SP permanently at risk with every vote, so some of your SP can be burned if the final consensus is strongly counter to your position?
People would be fearful when voting but that may be a good thing. They would be careful on what they voted on. The big question is how do we implement such a system and how do we determine consensus? I do like the burning aspect of the idea, however.
Hell, what the consensus even really mean on Steemit? The current system lacks any consensus. The current flag wars and voting abuse issues are indicative of that.
The more and more I think about it, the more and more I start to agree with those that argue for returning to r^2 rewards. They encourage users to put their money into a single account and hold it there. There are probably better solutions to dealing with the inequitable distribution but linear rewards have shown that they are a poor solution and cause a whole new set of problems with being able to subvert consensus by spreading votes out through lots of phony accounts.
A bit of caution and awareness would certainly be healthy, if not outright fear. Consensus is established through the voting process, but with linear rewards it's pretty meaningless. The change to linear rewards was implemented to satisfy populist demand, but I think it was misguided. R^2 may be beyond what's necessary, but to reward consensus R^1 is unhelpful.
I'd like to see a return to R^2 (or maybe R^1.5?), symmetrical rewards for downvotes as for upvotes on the same curve, and negative SP curation penalties for voting in opposition to the final consensus. Since it would all be on the same curve, the penalties would scale with the amount of voting power used and the strength/weight of the consensus opposed.
This conversation chain contained some good comments, so you win some SBD.
Thanks!