I would say the issue was (is) the ridiculous imbalance in distribution of shares and that those shareholders act like they won their stake in the lottery.
You made a lot of sense back in the day, but now you are just picking on my wording.
large voters were amplified by the effect of n^2.
So were large downvoters. You all had a chance to 'pull the other crabs down'.
I think it was too few people and you guys just ganged up / could not be bothered.
Glad you are still lurking, tho.
Same as now, and now, as before, we see that downvoting as currently envisioned is a mostly failed model because there are is too much to lose (pissing people off, arguments, wasted voting power, retaliation/flag wars) and too little (in fact effectively nothing) to gain.
The crab bucket is a nice analogy but also by now, nicely disproven in practice.
BTW, when you start talking about what people 'act like' as being the real problem, you are always going to be on the wrong track. People are people and will always behave in a variety of ways, not the way you think they should. If a system doesn't have mechanisms to function properly in the presence of the full range of human behaviors, particularly a system explicitly intended for humans to use, then such a system is broken.
I am proposing non linear posting rewards, because it is a mechanism, that rewards consensus.
Such a curation process also creates a valuable peer review mechanism yadda yadda yadda.
I am saying that the chosen handful of people, who got the initial stakes, had no integrity and are not a big enough group to call this a conclusive experiment.
Just because you 10 people did not get your shit together does not mean the idea was wrong.
It is not called 'ned and his 5 crab buddies and 2 bad guys in a bucket' -analogy.
Anyways, linear rewards make no sense at all.
There are still some idiots like me, who vote for posts, but sooner or later, nobody will use the vote function anymore. The system right now does not reward curation, at all.
It would be more efficient to offer a service, that gives you a direct cashback on your vote.
Perhaps I will set that up, just to take the piss.
I'll be an entrepeneur like bernie or ned !
Except that it doesn't actually do that (except in a fantasy world of wishful thinking). It encourages 'consensus' (in a perverse manner of speaking) not between people but between individual units of SP. The most efficient way to achieve that consensus is for one person to own a lot of SP, or for a small number of large SP holders to work together to vote the same posts and then split the rewards.
The number of non-downvoters is a lot larger than that. In fact it is almost anyone (and for the record I'm one of the biggest downvoters in the history of Steem, but still, that doesn't make my point about the lack of downvoting generally wrong.)
Besides, even if what you wrote is correct, it does show that the idea is wrong. Because as, I noted above, for something to work on a blockchain, it has to work for the full range of human behaviors, including a bunch of people (regardless of number) not behaving as you would like.
You're right. It is a good thing we don't have linear rewards, because we have downvoting. If A upvotes and B downvotes, the resulting reward is (assuming equal vote power, etc.) proportionate to SP_A - SP_B, which is not linear in SP. It is precisely a consensus rewarding mechanism as you described above.
Unfortunately, people don't downvote (for a number of reasons including this already stated above), which is the crux of the problem. Fix that and Steem's concept of voting on rewards might have a chance (though blockchain voting has many other problems still). Otherwise, it probably doesn't.
That said, this entire thread (sadkitten vs. steembay, an exception to the general rule of hardly any downvotes) illustrates my point nicely. Self-voting, particularly when practiced in a certain, highly focused, manner, is an example of voting outside of consensus in the sense that there are stakeholders (sadkitten supporters) who don't support it. Therefore steembay's manner of voting its stake is out of consensus and is rewarded proportionately less. Since the reward pool is zero sum relative to voting, that means that everyone else's (in-consensus) votes are rewarded more.
See ? you are picking on my wording. Proportional progression ?
Unfortunately, I did not have my math education in English language. That is why I am not as precise in my statements, as I usually am.
Above, I have told you the reason, why this experiment failed.
All the people who went to steemfest, all the people who went to any steem meetup, all the peope, who I ever talked to, together they own a fraction of the stakes in steem of one of the shadow accounts.
These accounts are not even trying to act like they would, if they had paid for their coins.
I'm not picking on your wording. I am disagreeing with the concept that we have linear rewards. We don't because we (sort of) have downvotes. Linear weighting of reward without downvotes would be true linear and would have broken game theory. As long as people are willing to downbote non-value-adding activity then the return on voting is not linear and the alleged problem of self-voting to generate 'interest' does not exist.
y = m*x + bThe rest of the world calls this a proportional/linear progression.
The more you add, the more it gets.
The more you take away, the less it gets.
If you were to draw the rewards as a function over time then it would not be a steady graph and there would be a zig zag and no line.
Rewards as a function of the sum of rshares, are a straight fucking line.
With the reward distribution formula being the way it is now, is there any reason to look for good content ?
Would anyone in their right mind would have designed a blockchain like this with 'posting rewards' but no incentive at all to reward a post that is not your own ?
I do not think so. This is why I say: It doesn't make sense.
But wait, SP/vote-power/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is abs(vote) and abs() is not a linear function when vote can be negative.
This is why voting with downvotes is not linear.
With downvotes we get all the benefits of superlinear voting (consensus) without the fatal flaw of plutocracy.
Absolutely yes, as long as people downvote inferior or overrewarded content. Your vote will have more influence (and earn more in curation rewards) if it isn't downvoted. If, by contrast, you vote for yourself and get downvoted, your vote may be worth little or nothing.
People don't downvote (enough). This is broken and needs to be fixed. (Also curation rewards are too low.)
None of this is anything new, I've been saying the same thing for two years. Even with n^2, better downvotes and higher curation would have been better at rewarding consensus rather than just concentration. Likewise with so-called linear.