I'm suggesting that the people at the top stop taking rewards from those at the bottom until we get enough people in here to dilute the problem of giving one person rewards that cut scores or hundreds of minnows out of anything.
If the whale vote increased the pool it would be different, but when it simply redirects major portions to the favored few it is no wonder that those outside those favored have issues with it.
That looks too much like what we get in our daily lives, for me.
Changing the platform to fit the behavior is less desirable than changing the behavior to fit the current needs of the platform, to me it just makes more sense that we give the idea more than a few months to achieve widespread adoption before essentially gutting it to starting over.
Constant changes to the very basis that established us to this point is unlikely to prove a stable choice, imo.
@freebornangel, your suggestion of 10, 100, 1000 multipliers would have to be across the board. My vote, I am applalled to say, is worth $0.002. So, let's do the sums. Let's say a dolphin has a vote worth, for argument's sake $3.00. I, on a 100 multiple go to $0.2. The dolphin goes to $300. $299.98 more than me. Before it was ... I hope you get the problem! It is relative but it is absolute as well.
Is there some reason that you say it has to be across the board?
Can the algorithm not be adjusted in this manner?
It cannot really, how do you redress the balance? Where is the centre of the fulcrum? If a vote can be worth $30 or even more. A newbie vote is worth say $0.0001 - 300,000 Times 0r what I would call unjustifiable. We cannot go live like that - imagine the press!!The vote value is the key ingredient and it should be displayed in every post for all to see. Hence my call for the 80 most over-valued posts so we can see who what how and see the content. That will sort a lot out.
It will also show up shit content which, despite the noises, goes unchecked.
The horse has bolted. It bolted when the mining rewards were decided. Investor influence is one thing. Getting the influence the miners and intravoters have secured is the problem. The funny thing is that the behaviour has been counter-productive in that this is the root cause of the price of steem.
Perhaps the curve should be on a gradient?
I'm pretty sure they can make the math work however they want to program it.
Well, yes, exactly but, by definition, a curve cannot be a gradient. The two inputs are SP and reputation which is, essentially, the total of all the votes you have ever received but the bigger votes carry more, obviously.
I probably need to explain all the research I have done as it all interacts. The result of everything is that less than 100 people control 80% and less than 400 control 90% - distributed? I think not.
This is the power struggle which has led to steem being where it is. It should by the valuation models I use be at 4 cents
Ok, I get that.
Still I think the math can be made to up the minnows, and not necessarily down the whales, so that their votes can be seen to have some impact.
If we expect to attract people with .000001usd votes we are kidding ourselves.
1000 of them still don't show up on the ui.
Guess where the scrapings off the bottom go! Yes, it is a rort
I understand what you're saying now. But, I wouldn't consider this a change in the platform. More a refinement of a change that is already in existence.
The problems you speak of are valid. However, the whale votes do not always come from the whales manually. I am addressing the issue of whale power being used to redirect the rewards pool towards a select few repeatedly.
So, I feel we are in agreement on the problems that need to be fixed, but I don't think you are seeing how this guild will be able to make the changes that clearly you and I both want to see.
I also want to mention that this is not intended to be a permanent part of Steemit. I feel that once the trending posts start to represent the best that we have to offer, and once those who are deserving of it start getting rewarded for their work, the user retention problem will be solved and we will begin to draw in new users.
Think of this as stabilizers on a bicycle to help a kid learn to how to ride. Once Steemit has enough of a user base, there will be no need for the stabilizers anymore and we can put an end to the guild and revel in excitement at a newly improved and successful platform that each of us helped to build.
@son-of-satire, with all due and proper respect to you, in all earnest truth, when we get our Raleigh, the peleton will have rushed past on the latest carbon fibre racing bikes. What @freebornangel has said is absolutely right.
The rep score is understood to be a little irrelevant. What is relevant is the value of a vote. This is the building block system of steemit. Why is everyone so opposed to displaying the value of everyone's vote in a culture of transparency?
The answer to the question is that this will expose the exponential curve.
A system such as this should make it possible to reach the top. If it does not, as @freebornangel said, we might as well be on Google or Facebook because the whales are profiting from the minnows.
I have done the mathematics and it is an undeniable truth.
The leverage of investors is one thing (still unhealthy). The leverage of miners is a leverage which is unsustainable, irrational and unjustifiable.
As I said, I write these words with the greatest of respect to you!
As a sunote, please see this and see the responses: Guilds
This is a problem that is beyond my abilities or my power to change. I can't remove curation rewards or the likes.
However, what is within my power, is stopping a number of dolphins heading to become new whales unjustly, rather than allowing more minnows to become dolphins.
This will help to give minnows more power. And when they have enough, there will be no more need for any guilds at all.
No offence was taken at all. I'm not against people sharing their views.
I'd like to see the minnow math moved at least two decimals to the left.
If my vote is now worth x I'd like to see what happens with the math if that was increased to 10x, 100x, and 1000x.
Perhaps this simple change will give the dust reason to go ahead and get in the water, while not radically altering the seascape.
I'm not opposed to guilds, I contribute to @crowdfundedwhale, but I do disagree with some people pulling out exponentially more at the top and discouraging hope for future growth that is fed by rewards at the bottom.
I hope you that you are correct.
I hope that curation awards aren't taken away.
I hope the payout doesn't go to seven days.
I wish the power down would go to 10 months.
I don't want to make a set of rules for the whales and another for everybody else.
We are in a pond, no need to make some fish more equal than others, any more than already exists.
Behavior changes can rectify what folks are concerned about.
Imo.
I agree with your points. I don't want those things either. Though I'm not opposed to a three day fixed payout cycle with a three month secondary cycle to keep people sticking around.
Also, I think 30 weeks would be best for power downs, with 3% per week until the 30th week when the remaining 13% is released.
I have my reasons for this, but I shall save a long-winded explanation on this post, as it's not related to the subject matter.
I'm not strongly opposed to a three day and ninety day payouts, though I think changes should be made one at a time and not too close to each other so that they may be evaluated on their own merits.
Yes. I agree.
By the way, if you're interested in joining the discussion about this guild, and how we can improve the current model, I just made a server on discord for anyone to come and share their thoughts.
https://discord.gg/hx5Pn
I will certainly do that when I get an internet connection better suited to my needs.