You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: UserAuthority (UA): explanations, applications and implications
Hi @oaldamster
- we both know a wise man who said "playing simple football is hard". Let's try anyway, because "if you don't shoot, you can't score a goal"
- in your reasoning, there's an error. You said ...
There is an economical incentive there too. Following popular accounts, will give you a better UA
- it's the other way around: having a popular account to follow you means you'll be rewarded with a higher UA. If a n00b follows a whale, the whale probably won't follow the n00b. The n00b first needs to gather a low-UA audience to resteem the n00b's articles, in order to get noticed by the whales
- I'll comment on the decentralized database / blockchain problem in my response to @personz's comments.
Sure, if you do not try, you won't know...
And yes, you are right, the reasoning is the other way around, getting popular accounts to follow you. At first I thought that there could be a risk that Steem would become a legend level controlled popularity game. But it does not have to be build around a few accounts with a high UA defining what will become a standard for what is okay, considered good or even quality content.
But also accounts that are into absurdism, as an absurd example, could still get a high UA. Having lots of followers, that each have lots of followers, having each lots of... And so on and so forth.
There is one thing that I do my best to wrap my head around. In the formula you presented, there was no SP considered at first. The value for any account its UA is in effect an accumulation of all following accounts their UA, that depends on their UA, which is an accumulation of their followers UA etcetera. Do you consider it to be a needed part, using it in combination with SP?
Legend levels will then be redefined with a UA value (also taken into account the SP they vested) and Newbie levels will have the lowest UA value possible. Trying to get as many high UA level accounts to follow them. There is the economic encentive. Higher UA, means higher possible payouts, getting even more followers and so on.
This could act like a bubble up - sink down filter mechanism I guess, so no economic incentive to SPAM, or do the famous "Good post" kind of replies. Or the "Follow me and Upvote me now!" pressure replies. Or the link spam replies. As there is a low chance that will be rewarded with a follow of accounts who really put an effort to post and reply. To build a high UA containing (sub)network, a different behaviour pattern would be needed.
With a higher UA of influence as a kind of reward for posting using that appreciated behaviour pattern. What I do wonder is how this could work out for system critical posting accounts for instance. Would freedom of expression still be able to live at the Steem blockchain? Or could it be that it got silenced through this mechanism? Or that could build its own sub-network too, also with a high UA status.
That would make also sense in combination with SMTs. Like an Art sub-network, with their own SMT called Rembrandt would want the artistic contributors to get a part of the RMB reward pool. Not those abusing the art hashtag. But they'd have a low UA anyway, so at the most the'd get a small fraction of the rewards and a lot of unfollows.
Just me thinking out loud again...
Nope, high-SP is correlated strongly to high-UA, but only as a side-effect:
ref. Proposal HF 22:
vote_reward = UA * SPThanks, got it.
Just read the extentension part of UA usage in the Steem realm as in being a combination of different metrics.
That too makes sense.
It does, doesn't it! :-)
Yes, it does indeed. ;-)
I kind-of feel proud for how-to embed inside the blockchain. The rest is just a cool way on how to re-use 1960s math.
Great innovation, old school math put to good modern use.