RE: Witness consensus status to fix the actual steem’s economic flows (ENG)
Overall I'm very pleased to discover that most of the witnesses recognize that we have a clear an urgent problem in terms of our underlying economics: we're just rewarding the wrong behavior the most (vote farming)
Moving the curation up so it becomes more competitive is definitely the right move. 50% is hopefully enough, as we want to leave as much to incentivize authors as possible
100% separate downvotes however, is far too much. Remember, with 50% curation, even assuming vote farming provides 90%ish of returns, we only need to make up the other 40% here. That is to say, you don't need to take every vote 'abuser' to 0, taking it down 40%+ means they're likely better off just using their money to curate. Therefore, a much more modest number here should be considered
Honestly though, I don't think there's too much we can do to make the current economics worse unless we're actively trying. I hope to see some changes come in before SMTs, even if I don't personally agree with them all. The platform can't continue to go on like this
I don't think these numbers are right. In the absence of downvoting, vote farming is nearly 100% efficient and takes far less effort than curation, which is inherently competitive. To even be an average curator takes significant effort. To achieve balance here probably means 50-60% or possibly more. Does it need to be 100%? Probably not but it is close enough to not over-complicate things and try to create a distinction where there really isn't one.
I see a system where one N SP stakeholder can prevent another N SP stakeholder from making an ill-advised payout as healthy. It shouldn't require a multiple. There should be plenty of content where there is a clear majority of stakeholders expressing an opinion who are in favor of a payout. If there isn't then maybe we need to stop paying all this inflation for things that we don't agree are valuable.
That said, some other numbers could work, with other tradeoffs. If we bumped curation to 90% then far less downvotes would be need to balance between farming and curating (perhaps 10-20%). There is still an imbalance in terms of effort, and downvotes are still important to anchor curation to real value. Incentives favoring curation over farming is necessary but not sufficient.
Mostly agree. I'm not strongly opposed to even the idea of 10% free downvotes as I see it as a step in the right direction, albeit a weak one.
BTW, the proposal for n^1.3 has very little support so you need to factor in that it probably won't happen. A significant amount of downvote power will still need to go to block farming (as with mack-bot, etc.). Whatever is needed to fight high dollar reward extraction, general low/no-value payouts, and generally maintain healthy incentives for non-farmers is additive on top of that.
Yes i'm becoming more and more modest with my expectations and learning to compromise big time, lets forget superlinear, it's not an issue until an otherwise functional economic system is introduced. I raised it initially mainly in anticipation of certain exploits that can occur in the future
This isn't a reason. This is stating the consequences of the change as if it's a reason. Tim does the same thing.
The numbers are not close, they're very far out. There's never been a very strong rebuttal to my observation that:
Downvote strength only need to be sufficient to push abuse posts rewards towards roughly the new curation value in order to deter them rather than all the way down to 0.
We can both come up with some reasons to fudge the numbers a little to either side, but can we agree that this is an important consideration that was likely missed by most witnesses?
Ok, so an actual separate pool is pretty much out of the question due to implementation limitations. Which means features separate and severable downvote delegations from upvotes are gone, and we don't have a good estimate of the actual downvotes that'll be exercised. We're stuck with one pool and we're sure we can implement 100%, but we're uncertain if we can do a multiplier, steemit's help on any of this is out of the question until well pass SMTs, that's where we're at correct?
There's a lot of stuff to speculate on under the new system, 2 of which come to the forefront in my mind:
Obviously I believe 1 >>>>> 2, especially over time, but assuming you probably think the opposite, can we just assume that they mostly cancel each other out?
At which point, in light of the stuff in bold above, would you agree to 50%? Of course we don't know if it's possible, but if it were? I'm guessing we don't even agree on to what extent excessive downvotes are harmful etc, but putting that aside, 50% should be sufficient and going more isn't likely to yield greater value, would you support it?
I think 50% is excessive, but I'm still very confident it'll contribute to a much healthier content discovery and rewards system overall.
If it's not possible, gun to my head, sure, it's hard to do worse than what we currently have. With 100%, although I feel is really really bad, will still be better than what it is right now. But I truly think it's such an excessive change (we're really going from downvotes being prohibitively expensive as it costs 100% returns, to a system with as many pontential free downvotes as upvotes) it'll introduce a plethora of new problems, and with a half ass coding job, the timing right before SMTs and without steemit inc's backing, I'm not sure if it's entirely worth it.