You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit/Steem: Reputation Voting Analysis

in #utopian-io6 years ago

Suspicious voting patterns relating to account Reputation appear at the very bottom of the sample, and at the top.

You left out one of the most important things to note when talking about Reputation on the steem blockchain.

It's a logarithmic curve. It's a logarithmic curve that can only increase for an individual account by being voted up by a higher Reputation account.

This process is important when talking about anything dealing with Reputation, because it puts an interesting spin on trying to figure out how accounts reached that Reputation in the first place.

Sure, Reputation typically goes along with simply being on the platform longer – but it also simultaneously is only found in an account which regularly gets visibility and exposure to accounts with higher Reputation. Because the curve is logarithmic, accounts with higher Reputation become increasingly rare, at a ridiculous rate, as you go up.

Other analysis has suggested that Reputation 60 is the "magic number" at which the amount earned on the platform rapidly diverges upwards from income consistently garnered before that point. I don't think that is a coincidence; I believe it's correlated with the cohort age and survivability of the wave of users that came in about the same time.

A month over month retention analysis would be difficult purely because of the sheer amount of data to be filtered through, but we know that new user retention hovers between 6% and 8%. The retention rate for accounts which survive up to Reputation 60, much less 70+, have got to be horrendous.

So let's consider what a sock puppet has to do to climb out of the Reputation 25 starter space and move up into the suspected 40 – 44 range from your observations. They have to receive votes from higher Reputation accounts. If we see a Reputation cohort all plateauing around the same level, it's reasonable to assume that if most of the votes involved are going between each other, their visibility is largely only to one another, at least in enough volume to move the needle at that level. It seems to imply that if that plateau is stable, then the sock puppets all have roughly the same Reputation and probably mutually sustain at that level because there aren't enough at a higher Reputation to pull them up further along.

In the cases of specific Reputation ranges that tend to vote for another Reputation level, particularly a higher one, it might be worthwhile to simply extract the whole slice of accounts which have that level of Reputation and examine them individually. At anything above 60, this ought to be relatively straightforward and manageable.

Don't forget, some of this behavior can be explained by there being a significant presence of non-public vote automation going on behind the scenes. It would certainly make sense for someone with a modest amount of server availability and a little bit of liquid steam to make an extended synthetic community of accounts which do very little but vote for one another across the network in order to insert claims into the reward pool on a regular basis. Done consistently, this could be fairly self-sustaining.

I've also come to believe by looking at relationship maps that a number of the accounts with Reputation 70+ are not independent entities, but instead organized and operated by a singular intelligence who has spread to their SP across multiple accounts in order to obscure his or her activity. For that level of Reputation and the amount of SP that we're talking about, that person would have needed to be involved with the blockchain from a fairly early time or have an immense amount of cooperation from one or multiple people who were.

The logarithmic nature of Reputation and the requirement of having someone with a higher Rep vote you up into that space makes certain demands of subsequent analysis.

Sort:  

Sure, Reputation typically goes along with simply being on the platform longer – but it also simultaneously is only found in an account which regularly gets visibility and exposure to accounts with higher Reputation.

Thank you for that so clear explanation @lextenebris. All the content in your comment is pure solid gold. In fact, that info which I have selected in the quote only confirms in all its splendor our suspicions of why we have both been anchored in a reputation of 57 forever. ;)

Superb comment this one of yours mate. Complementing in great measure and depth what in itself was an interesting analysis by @abh12345 who reasonably refrained from revealing too many details in his own analysis for fear that these extra hints could go detrimental to his account. Tsk Tsk

:O

What do you mean Tsk Tsk :P

Come on level 58!

Hahahaha Tsk Tsk like in Glossina Morsitans with too much code & technical computations my friend. :p

Come on level 58!

Ok @abh12345, here you have it. More computation analysis challenges for you.

Both, @lextenebris and me have practically the very same Rep Score: 57.8 ¿Could you dare to place an 'entomologist bet' about which one of us would reach 58 first? }:)

tsssk :)

If I was a betting man, I would say that @lextenebris might just pip you to the post, sorry!

Oh, I think you're betting the wrong way on that one.

I never bet in favor of myself when it comes to any kind of competition. RNGesus hates me with a burning passion, and anything which might involve any kind of random factor at all is going to break against me.

It's not that the universe is sentient, it's that it's malevolent.

Don't underestimate yourself like a gambler. For me, you look like a formidably accurate betting man. Because I would say the same. };)

I'm actually pretty comfortable about being in Rep 57. Once you break that Rep 60 ceiling, people seem to expect more of you. They expect that you will care about curation, that you're going to invest heavily into bots and other automated systems for passive income, that you're going to suddenly transform into someone who cares about the platform as a platform, sell out your soul to the crypto cultists, and generally start acting like – I don't know – Jerry Bankfield.

Man, I don't want to do any of that.

My plan is to largely ignore my Reputation and focus on just doing what pleases and amuses me. If it just so happens that people with higher Reputations like what I'm doing, my Rep will go up. If it just so happens that a lot of people with lower Reputations like what I'm doing, my rep will stay where it's at.

Given the choice, I'm far more interested in playing to a wider audience. If nothing else, it ends up with more interesting comments.

Oh yeah! I can understand your position and viewpoint very well. I suspect you prolly would like to check what I've already replied to Asher a couple of comments above.

Doing what you please within the platform also amuses me big time. I find myself reluctant too to give up that freedom of movement so easily.

Given the choice, I'm far more interested in playing to a wider audience. If nothing else, it ends up with more interesting comments.

Though, after almost two years around here experimenting and trying to also play to a wider audience, clearly seems that I have fallen short in attract those interesting comments you are talking about also. }:)

haha

I'm enjoying this thread :)

As far as playing to a wider audience, analysis cant be too technical - If I see too much code or computations I'm out!

Hello!

I'm in agreement with much of what you say, a great addition to the post, thank you.

Much of what you say I am aware of, but I think for the general populous here, logarithmic scales are not really what they came to see.

Mind you, perhaps and analysis that takes you to the box, but wont allow you to open it, isn't either :)

Your second paragraph from the finish is spot on, and actually has been posted about in the past by larger accounts.

The logarithmic nature of Reputation and the requirement of having someone with a higher Rep vote you up into that space makes certain demands of subsequent analysis.

All yours :)

I've said all I wish to say on the topic without including account names. The main reason being that this is my only source of income and I don't wish to lose it.

However, I would be keen on a Vested Steem Power analysis of voting - does money vote for money?

Thank you for the most excellent comment.

I try not to underestimate the intelligence of my audience. If the fact that the path upwards becomes exponentially steep the higher they go is important, I let them know. Shifting from displaying values linearly to logarithmically was a pretty revelatory move when I was doing an analysis and breakdown of the curve of diminishing SP at the top of the ownership lists on the blockchain.

It's one thing to see that there is a self similar curve. It's quite another to see that, aside from a few bumps in the road, that curve remains linear when viewed logarithmically all the way down. At that point, it makes it much easier to see the aberrations – and the aberrations are where the interest are.

However, I would be keen on a Vested Steem Power analysis of voting - does money vote for money?

I've obviously given up all concerned about naming names and drawing attention, mainly because I figure there is nothing that would be more supportive of my analysis than some big names getting bent out of shape enough to start voting me down in earnest.

I like the income, but I can't be saying anything to particularly radical because neither Bernie nor Haejin have decided that I'm worth putting the boots to. That's probably the right analysis on their part, given that I'm just pointing out abstruse corners of things going on in the blockchain and their game is in an entirely different space.

But that's how I roll.

"Does money vote for money?" That should be a fairly easy analysis to put together, and one that I find myself being vaguely curious about as well.

I'll just add that to my "potential future stories" pile.

Well thought out responce! Following you!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.14
JST 0.029
BTC 65771.81
ETH 3174.77
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.61