Howdy again sir Glen! yes, taskmaster that's the one. very encouraging posts.
But what is the economic improvement proposal?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Howdy again sir Glen! yes, taskmaster that's the one. very encouraging posts.
But what is the economic improvement proposal?
The EIP is a proposal that trafalgar principally, and then kevinwong and others have been pitching for at least a year (maybe longer, but I didn't notice the posts until after STEEM fell and self-upvoters and bidbot owners started worrying about sustainability).
Most recently, the steemitblog came out in favor of it, even though andrarchy had said earlier he personally would rather wait to see what might happen with SMTs and communities. I guess the communications director has less pull than the devs do.
At the time of the post, it was presented for discussion only, but apparently in about two weeks time since the post it has gone from discussion to production, and will be a part of the new hardfork (21.0) that was previously reserved only for the worker's proposal that Blocktrades did most of the work on.
The EIP is basically three-pronged:
Change the current linear curve to a convergent linear curve, which means it essentially becomes linear after a certain amount of rewards are allocated to a post but is less so to start. Mvandeberg has a post out about that, too with a chart that shows what convergent linear does.
Change the author/curator split from its current 75/25 split back to a 50/50 split (it's been well over two years since it was that, I guess). The idea is, larger SP accounts aren't incentivized to curate because you can make more delegating SP to bidbots or to dApps, individuals, etc, than you can make money of curation. So, the idea is to re-incentivize curation, which means if more curation, more upvotes, so that author's won't feel the hit so much.
Create a separate downvote pool. At present, it's only suppose to allow for a number of downvotes to be "free", as in, not affecting voting power like they do now, until that limit of downvotes is exhausted, then the voting power depletion kicks in. Some versions of this have it all free, while others want downvotes to be paid, like an upvote would, I guess. As it is, any rewards allocations removed from a post goes back to the rewards pool where it becomes available for re-allocation, is how I understand it.
I'm sure you've ran across posts about this in some fashion. Whether they called it the economic improvement proposal or not, I don't know, but there's been plenty of these posts going around. Just today there's more, including from Top 20 witness Tim Cliff.
Sir Glen, do you think these changes are good? The 50/50 split sounds like it might be an improvement. I don't know how the downvote pool should work, I never thought of it. what about the linear curve thing, is that good?
At this point, who knows. There's just as good a chance they will things worse as better. Meaning, it will only make the behaviors they say they're wanting to discourage (self-upvoting, bidbot use and SP leasing) even worse because they'll be more profitable than ever. They're basically saying people who haven't been inclined to curate suddenly will, and those who are curating will do even more.
I doubt that any of it will encourage manual curation. More likely, the higher SP folks will end up on curation trails or some kind of autovoting (the ones that are already will just end up dividing their upvotes more, if that's even possible).
I don't see it helping authors any, unless there's an increase in STEEM value, because there just aren't enough high SP accounts around to make up for all the active low SP accounts.
So, who knows. The downvote thing is already abused. I don't see how taking away the penalty helps that. Supposedly, it's going to lead to people downvoting stuff on the trending page more that used bid bots to get there.
Funny thing about all of this is, if there's been one bidbot owner up in arms about this, I haven't seen a single post about it. Or maybe I have. Fyrstikken may have said something. Regardless, bidbot owners' not being agitated makes me wonder how this is all going to go down.
Wow sir Glen, with all the important moves they could make and real changes needed..it looks like this hardfork will be a waste of time!
Well, who knows. I'd like them to test this, run a simulation based on historical data, but apparently that's not good enough. They want to see the changes in behavior, too, which they won't see otherwise. Well, I'd say, change the behavior first, then do the historical data simulation. That way we're not upheaving the entire chain just for a few higher SP folks who think they've come up with the magic bullet. Actually, some aren't saying that. Some are saying they don't know if it's going to really accomplish anything, which means, if this were government, that this is the foot in the door step for something else. :)
well so far I don't like the hardforks here very well! lol.