Reward Pool Rape: Downside of Steem Blockchain innovate nature Or Abuse of Free will?
Many steemit members are aware of the whale civil war going on here for months now due to some people posting 8 to 10+ daily posts and thus making average of 300SBD on each post which led to @berniesanders taking the fight (mostly alone) to those gangs and calling for other whales to help him fight the fight due to its complexity.
This resulted to some members, examples @fulltimegeek, @hendrix22 joining to help flag such abuse -however their efforts are overwhelmed by the huge steem power controlled by the abusers and the scale of abuse in steemit . Most recently, our dear wild man: @papa-pepper wrote an OPEN LETTER TO STEEMIT INC., THE WITNESSES, AND THE WHALES see link here
In which he suggested them to implement a daily post limit of 4 in order to solve the issue of daily post abuse, especially from those that posts 6+ to 10+times daily .
Conversely, however, in light of @papa-pepper prudent suggestions, do you guys really think that limiting to 4 daily posts will help stop the issues? What if steemit members reaches 10+ to 100+ millions members, won´t 4 daily posts flood the system? Most importantly, is´nt it true that steemit blockchain innovative nature which creates platform for many innovative apps allows for such massive daily post?
Here are some few points:
Note: There are many people and issues raping steemit reward pool (spams, bots, last minute comments and posts upvotes, mass accounts etc) however, for the purpose of this post, I will focus only on posts daily limits.
Steem blockchain: Steem blockchain is an amazing blockchain and superior than most other blockchains with regards to transactions speed (faster than ethereum and bitcoin combined) . Moreover, it powers many platforms like steemit (blogging platform like facebook, Reddit ), Zappl (like twitter) , Dmania (jokes ), Dtube (Video like Youtube) , Dlive (videos ), Busy.org (blogs) , Utopia (projects) etc.
Therefore, how can the post limit works when members are given many amazing platforms to post daily? Example, one can easily upload 4 funny pictures on Dmania without adding a sentence, one short video on Dtube or Dlive, one post via steemit , 4 short messages via zappl etc leading to many posts a day.
Soultion:
There is no perfect solution to this. It Is just like in Germany where most of the cars built have huge speed/horse power and you want to impose speed limit on the high way? Then why build the likes of Porsche, Bugatti, BMW, Mercedes, Audi and or Lamborghini? Conversely, however, free will doesn’t mean that we should abuse or flood the system with massive posts without thinking of others who also want to be seen or noticed.
In light of these facts, I support imposing daily post limits (I might indicate 2 or 3 however it might not be the right number and people can always open another account and post/spam their contents , therefore it is the duty of our dear community members and witnesses to agree on the best number) and any posts that goes above the agreed limits will not receive reward. This will help curb such issues-however , imposing posts limits goes against the concept of decentralization ! and might cause issues isn´t it?.
Quality and Engagement: No one can ever posts 4+ top quality posts daily and at the same time engage with those that comments on their posts. Therefore, guys we need quality posts and not quantity. Moreover , try to bring out time to at least respond (at least try) and reward those that bring out time to read and comment prudently on your posts-this will motivate them to continue adding good suggestions to our posts. Thinking only of yourself by posting many times a day and thus not having time to respond / engage with the community is bad for the ecosystem.
What do you think? Send in your comments and or suggestions, resteem and upvote in order for others to join.
Click here and read my former post:Funny denial: 50 Cent Claims he is not a Bitcoin Millionaire At Bankruptcy Court
An Advert for a top new crypto www.elyte.io
Competition: Our competition bounty is open- feel free to share this form and Join Elyte 1st Social Media Video Competition via this link : https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdOtRSqVYV48sIghmNUGG_pUNtoc-AneaDUzN8YBZhDPGPIzw/viewform
White List / Crowdsale: crowdsale is still open for those who want large quantities of Ethereum Lyte at good price. Take up the opportunity of cheap Eth now to change some fiat and buy cheap elyte tokens now before it is too late (see link https://main.elyte.biz/?page_id=433 )
The solution is concawe (sqrt-like) reward curve.
And ban from exchanges to any abuser accounts.
Nice post.
what is nice about the post...bot?
Your point exactly, Right? I have no clue as to how to effectively stop the abuse without hurting the overall vision of the platform. It's just a shame that we even need to have this conversation.
have me vote visit my blog @mulyadedi do not forget upvote thank you
https://steemit.com/history/@mulyadedi/teuku-nyak-graveyard-aceh-the-story-of-aceh-commander-without-the-head-teuku-nyak-graveyard
interesting ..
In the end who work hard deserve
Great post .. Thank you for your words
A friend of mine told me that there were 4 post daily limit imposed before which was later removed. I think coming up with say 2 to 3 or max 4 posts daily limit will help stop the abuse however as you indicated people might open massive accounts which is going on anyway! the system is designed with limitations however which system is perfect? thanks for your post...hope the decision makers read this post and act accordingly.
Yeah the 4 post limit was around for at least a year. It didn't stop this. Not one bit. They just used multiple accounts instead.
It did however frustrate a lot of new people trying to use the platform.
Didn't know about the 4 post daily limit as I joined June last year. I think limiting should be considered.
If it doesn't solve the problem then why should it be considered? All it really impacts is new people. Some people like to post a lot, some people don't.
As to the whales or people raping the reward pool. Limiting number of posts even if you limited it to a single post per day wouldn't stop them at all.
They would simply use multiple accounts with delegated power.
If you remove delegated power then they'd just go back to what they did before delegated power and power down their accounts and then power up across many smaller accounts that could all up vote each other.
So limiting the posts WILL NOT solve the problem.
Yet it will introduce potential frustration for new users that don't understand why they are being penalized for how many times they post.
It won't impact me either way, as I did just fine with following the 4 post limit for the most part. Yet sometimes I artificially stopped and did not write something I wanted to write on a day due to being at that limit.
Very good comment indeed, Upped. However, doing nothing is not a solution isn´t it?
No, but neither is doing something that won't work just so we can virtue signal that we did something.
If this was an easy problem we would have done something years ago.
If it hurts user experience, and is easy for the people that are exploiting the system simply by using multiple accounts then implementing it is not a solution. It is just reacting and making things worse for other users.
Is there a solution waiting to be found? Probably, but it will take some serious out of the box thinking and is likely not going to be as easy as limiting the number of posts.
Good point ..limiting posts goes against the concept of decentralization isnt it? thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.
I don't know that limiting goes against decentralization if it is limited equally on all users. The biggest problem with it is it imposes restrictions, but doesn't actually resolve the problem it is proposed to fix. I mean they did try it for over a year. I didn't see and difference really.
There have been people more concerned about exploiting steemit than making it better since I started here around July 7th, 2016.
This is a problem with us being idealistic. I don't know of any system man has created, any form of government, any corporation, any religion, etc that over time is not corrupted by simple faults of human nature.
😂 😂
Sure. Your position and argument is germane. Let's hope for the best. Thanks for the response and let's steem on 👌
What about the decision to only post one post every 24 hours. Sure people could make different accounts, but if you are only able to post once, it may not be worth all the headache to continue to make all these different profiles in order to post multiple times?
What difference is there in posting 10 articles using 1 account versus posting 10 articles using 10 different accounts?
It would seem to me that it would be more of a pain to open 10 different accounts on here, with the crazy passwords and such. It would probably divert those from going through all the trouble to make 10 accounts, or 8 accounts, or really 5 accounts.
You can change the password.
Good points in your comment, thanks and I wish you a happy weekend.
I think limiting the number of post won't do much good. I even doubt if there's any. The things is, this platform offers us the option either to lift up or pull down someone's work. We'll just have to choose which one we'll take.
The only thing that MIGHT have impact is to remove support from bad actors, and if you catch them doing negative things make a post exposing their acts without calling them names or bad names and they'll either choose to change or perhaps more and more people will stop supporting them based upon what you reveal.
The sad thing is some people will latch onto them regardless like a ramora (leech like fish attaches to sharks) in hopes of getting nice votes from them. These hangers on could become their only subsistance, but overtime these ramora like posts gain power too due to these posts and it shifts the power towards those that don't really give a damn about the system overall as long as they personally benefit.
(whispers...the 4% don't play by our rules or ethical standards....ever..)
Sure... but ramoras latching onto them in hope of getting scraps doesn't help either. It actually gives them more power.
the ramoras can be the 4 % also- sneaky twats, they get everywhere..
That's definitely one of the main things I dislike about Steemit. I find it a bit contrived the way people only ever comment positively on posts, even with certain content that isn't original and borders on shitpost. Everyone just wants the nice vote from the big whales. You have to acknowledge the real posts that benefit the community.
I want to believe that attempting to remove the bad actors from the platform will be a way to cleanse Steemit from the raping and pillaging.
It does seem counterproductive to limit new users to 4 daily posts, but maybe it would exclude them, or anyone under a certain age or Steem reputation.
Is there a happy solution out there that doesn't penalize the new users because some asshats out there are abusing the system? I would love to think so.
And how does one catch a whale?
incentivized social projects have this problems everywhere . People tend to make more money and you cant blame them . WE can stand united and let the good deeds outpace the spams . Thats the only way . Of course we need technical help as well. Just my opinion.
Good point, thanks for your comment
the solution is simple, give people the option to take a bigger reward cut from curating and they wouldn't have to spam anymore.
I know a whale taking a big reward sounds unfair but we should consider the fact that they invested into steem while they could invest the same money elsewhere and take bigger profits.
investors give the currency value, keep pestering them and they leave with their money, each time a big investor sells his/her steem, your steem loses some value so, be nice.
So your solution to those who posts 10+ posts daily is to give them more money and they will stop? Lol
no, I said give them more money without the need to spam.
if you want to solve the spam problem, that's the way. if you think people shouldn't seek profit from their investment, there's facebook, tumbler, twitter and many free blogging platforms for that.
steemit is all about money and everybody want's a piece of this money, those who invested more in steemit should get a bigger piece. wouldn't you agree? and don't tell me you're not here for the money because I would ask you to prove it.
Point however human nature will not allow them to be satisfied...that is the issue
The fact that the other apps feed into the Steemit blog means that what is proposed will not work. Like you said, 4 zaps, which are nothing if it does indeed become like Twitter, would use up the daily allowance. People send out hundreds of tweets a day.
Also, I fail to see how limiting the number of posts is freedom. We claim to be non censoring yet by limiting, we are shutting people up. There are accounts on here that act as "news" accounts. Certainly, there are more than 4 things happening in a day.
As I posted this morning, the power is shifting as more people sign on. Right now on person can make waves with the pool being so small. Get another million people on here and the impact is much less.
People can downvote and that is one avenue of the system. However, if 1,000 people went out and got 10 people to sign up (granted the sign up process cant handle that) and they posted 10 times each day, that would be 100K new articles posted...that would dilute the take home of a certain few individuals.
Right, that was another issue that I overlooked in my initial suggestion. Thanks!
Good point hence why I extended the discussion here in order to reach more people and continue finding solutions...thanks for your great posts @papa-pepper and sending in your comment here.
If nobody was voting for those 100k articles you'd have a lot of disappointed users. Trying to displace the ever increasing and determined haijin is a nice idea but why would that affect the reward pool rape? He's got much more shares in ONE VOTE, one ONE POST than all those 10 people. How could you realistically keep up without flagging?
It is simple...he only has the 10 votes...unless he wants to do more and cute down the voting weight on each post. Either way he is maxed at 10 per 24 hours (at 100%).
If those downvoting starting posting, especially the heavy hitters, their author rewards would dilute the reward pool, taking away from Haejin. The reward pool is what it is on a daily basis....the only variables are the number of posts and the voting power that was voted.
If the number of articles suddenly went from 70K a day to 210K a day, this would dilute the reward pool by spreading the payouts over the other articles. A tripling of the articles, especially with heavy SP people posting, would overwhelm him. He simply cannot ramp up to keep pace.
It is akin to the stats I have posted for the last month talking about the power of the whales and orcas decreasing. For the past 120 days (the time I looked at) the few with the big SP are simply losing power as a percentage of the whole. This is because all the new people posting who are taking a little here and a little there. One or two means nothing. But when 10,000 people are doing it, it starts to add up.
Author rewards are 75% of the reward pool....posting is the quickest way to dilute it...especially from one person.
No it wouldn't because there would be 100000 posts that are worth 0 shares. The power is still being voted on only a few posts.
Okay if you say so.
How would 100K post be worth 0 shares?
Because you got 100k that are 0 votes.
Not if everyone used their 20% daily voting power.....
And I am not sure 40% of the posts on here get 0 votes.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Even 100K at .01 would be 1000 which would offset the single offender a great deal.
rancherorelaxo has 1.3M SP. A new account has .5sp and 15 delegated, so about 16 sp. 10000 users couldn't negate the content if they flagged directly. Math.
If those 10000 people voted on other things it wouldn't do 1% the damage that flagging would do, but then nobody would get rewards and it's pretty lame to hold 10000 people to be responsible for not even 10 percent of the voting power of one user.
What 0.01 rewards? If the SBD payout is < 0.02 you get zilch as an author or curator. It gets zeroed out. I have had lots of posts with ranges of like 0.004 to 0.019 all get zeroed out when 7 days is up. And the fact the site half rounds up the reward display is also discouraging because it will show 0.02 for a 0.015 post, which then gets zeroed out after 7 days. Very bad psychologically for minnows and plankton. Especially when the 0.02 display (which looks like it is at payout threshold) for a 0.019 payout turns into 0.00.
I can see "news" as several digests or an other app with a few accounts like "sport news", "scince news" and so on. They can be added on separated accounts and be reposted at one account (even without an app).
So I do not think 4 posts is such a limit. I never posted more than one per day )))
I agree. In fact, you convinced me, 4 times a day is too much. Everyone should post once a day.
And while we are at it, why stop at only the number of posts. No posts over 500 words. At the same time, we should limit it only to topics no controversial subjects..hence no political postings, nor religion, nor sports.
We will limit it to only attacks on fiat, bread making, and how to make your home more cozy.
Havent we seen what limitations do?
I guess not.
It's still very strange that you advise everybody to be prepared to become a newspaper ))) and publish all hot news at one account.
Why then we need so many of them? Let's become readers and have just one with unlimited publications.
Did I say everybody become a newspaper?
Nope I didnt say that....
But let us look at what you did write...
Ah, you are all for limitation. So you see a few accounts for news. What is someone doesnt want in those accounts...or like the form of 'news" that is issued.
According to your logic, why not just have one person post on every subject we can think of and we all can read that.
I guess you are all for limiting behavior on here.....
Sad to see.
Personally, I am for freedom not slavery.
In fact, when I think about "news" and "digests" I do not quite understand why self-upvoting is cosidered like an abuse.
Creating a platform, buying steems to have a power to make money for the work done, to pay to authors, designers, e.g.
Ok, we suppose that other person can appreciate newspaper work, but why then to buy steems for such projects? They will be created just for raping the pool?
Don't think it's all the questions for you - they just came to me with this discussion.
Good point indeed, I am for freedom too however as you know my dear buddy, people abuse free will!!! hence the need to put in mechanisms to tackle such abuses-that is the main theme of the post.
Good point, thanks for your comment
Very good comment indeed which acts as a solution for discussion. Thanks you so much for your suggestion which is highly appreciated
Nice comment I guess also as we grow in numbers in steemit, with many posts, those who post multiple times daily might not find it that rewarding...right?
Quite an explosive topic. To take sides means you might get burned in the process but the cross of the matter is there is serious abuse going on as regards multiple posts a day for those who earn much. Common sense should come to play for those who abuse the system and are been asked to stop but will they? Well human nature wouldn't allow that.
Nice one as always. Upped
I agree..human nature will always take over
I can certainly agree with a max post per day limit, 3 or 4 seems like an reasonable number, perhaps a maximum limit to how much a vote can be worth regardless of SP but allowed more votes to compensate for high SP holders as a preventative measure and would also promote voting on more posts instead of one large dump on 1 user/post . Many of the post that make the trending page by the same people everyday should be considered of abuse of the blockchain and reward system when they are poor quality. Another problem is abuse of the voting of bid-bots. I wish bid-bot owners would be more thorough and have better quality requirements to obtain such a vote. Much of the trending page has been filled with low-level content and bad pictures voted to ridiculous amounts. As new users join, that's the example they see to make it and will act in the same way. Unless a solution is found before the masses flow in. Thank you for talking about this with your level of visibility, maybe a solution can be found before it devalues the platform's future. I like steemit even with it's current flaws and I would be sad if it failed, it has so much potential to change the world in various ways but it must be used responsibly in order to achieve that goal.
Thank you so much for your prudent suggestions...I wish you a blessed weekend.
Thank you , have a great weekend too @charles1 :)
You are welcome, always.
I agree with @taskmaster4450 that limiting number of posts isn't the answer. There will be a handful of talented folk who can kick out more than 4 high quality posts in a day and I think it would be a shame to enforce arbitrary limits and deny this creativity and freedom of expression.
I personally believe that the solution lies in tackling self-voting and this needs to be addressed with some sort of max vote amount and degradation in value over say a 24 hr period. Say 100%-80%-60% etc per post down to 0%. So you would put your best efforts into your first 3-4 posts per day (which feeds into your suggestion by a different route) as you know the next 5-6 aren't going to get (as) much on your self-votes. Maybe start with a $100 max self-vote at 100%. For those who aren't in it to milk the system, they can quite happily carry on posting in a day beyond this limit and will have to rely on the voting public for any further upvotes. (what this doesn't tackle is collusion...suggestions please!).
Just a thought.
Good suggestions , thanks for your comment.
Heard from a fairly reliable source that self upvoting restrictions are in the new, yet to see production, fork.
Except that now you send them to vote through a proxy, all day long, all you've done by limiting self-votes is created one hurdle for some quite determined people.