Anyone with a brain could figure out that a difference like that can only exist right now if fewer people are reaping those rewards, given the rewards systems are the same currently. That tends to point to a serious long term problem for Steem.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steemians: "We centralized the chain, now we'll centralize distribution"
:-)
That's true, this is why I'm slowly powering down SP and converting earnings to HP but if proposal like this one gets funded it won't make any sense to me or any other investor
I get the feeling that there's no need to worry about it. I think too many people share your fear to try the experiment.
What I don't like about automatic voting is the abuse of the curve by programming to 5 minutes without giving time to manual curators. Eliminating the healing curve would be beneficial.
Another abuse of the automatic votes is when you use 100% of them and nothing to manual curation. The same group of authors will always be voted on, excluding others, and this discourages new users.
The solutions for many whales can be to get into a manual curation trail as you do with @cervantes and what you could do with others as @rutablockchain 😝
Now seriously, speaking of solutions. In the Whaleshares blockchain they did not have automatic votes, somehow they were not in the code, although I am not in favor of such a drastic solution. They also implemented (I think it would be at a frontend level) that to vote a post you had to open it and you couldn't directly from the feed.
@theycallmedan provided a solution to this and "delegated" their vote to several community leaders among whom I am, only following the vote of a new account with a fixed percentage. He relieved himself of curation and made it more decentralized, distributing that vote in several communities but keeping his stake for when he wants to vote. We as curators do this to help the community.
The whales must be integrated into the communities, so there are many ways to encourage manual curation.
Any proposal that goes through eliminating curation rewards will make it stop curation and as a consequence a stampede and abandonment of users. It is the content creators themselves who are bringing more people to HIVE, I don't see the whales in that. If there is only a ROI for maintaining HIVE, most of the community will leave and this project will no longer make sense.
What makes HIVE different from another blockchain where you earn ROI, is that here you can transform lives of people who express their talents, if you change that you destroy the magic
I've grown to dislike the 5min window. I've talked about this for awhile. It screws manual curators and makes most flee to auto bots so they can earn better curation rewards voting before manual curators. I would like to see a flat change here. When I have time today I'll jot down a few more ideas.
This seems like a simple solution to reduce auto-voting and give those seeking and rewarding content based on its perceived worth (and not the authors previous efforts) a fair share. If the CR was paid out purely based on stake voted, a % could be set aside and burnt?
One issue with doing flat rewards, even for a time, instead of the curve is that it opens up a new form of auto-voting. For example, if the rewards are proportional to stake for the first hour, then large stackholders can have bots watch which posts are getting first hour votes and pile in. The curves encourage voting before others, but not voting too early. Perhaps the early-voting-penalty time could be extended, and front-ends could build ways to delay manual votes for their users.
My thinking behind the CR based on stake is that there would be no financial benefit to piling on something already rewarded well. If your vote is worth $1, you get 50 cents in 7 days.
But yes, then we are back to potential self-voting of comments and buying votes.
It’s a tough one.
!ENGAGE 25
But the self-voting was with a 25/75 split. With the 50/50 split, it may be a bit different, in fact, I'd bet it'd be a lot different. And comments would once again be upvoted just as much as original posts! The minnows would be much happier with a more equitable 1:1 distribution with the lower vote count comments and posts too! It would be much fairer.
But yes, I agree, it's a tough one. Too bad we can't find that happy balance in between.
What you're saying is true, but I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing, from a quality curation perspective. Manual voters would identify the good posts, then auto-vote bots would just be magnifying the rewards to the authors of those posts. It does allow the bots to benefit from the work of the manual curators to some extent, but I think it would be better than the situation now.
Effectively, it would be allowing bots to do vote trailing based on more than one manual curator.
"Human Curator Amplification" bot - well that's my excuse. It'd be interesting to model what the plays would be. I'm guessing an amplification of the echo effects from the current favourite-author based autovoters until they become a smaller part of the puzzle - basically when manual curation has a larger effect. Then whales + cartels upvoting shitposts as bot magnets. At least there'd be fewer shitposts that get massive upvotes so easier to target for downvoting.
I think there would be more incentive to join manual curation project trails without the curve and it is easier for anyone to find a good trail than 10 or more content creators to always vote for them.
ENGAGEtokens.It's good to know that community leader see the problem, trying to find the solution and asking for opinion (that's how I read your proposal). I bet we will have to get back to the discussion after the hardfork. There are many ideas in comments how to improve the system, here is mine:
I also think that anonymous downvotes would be helpful. But while it may be possible to do it, there's no obvious way to do so. I will give it some thought though, since I need to solve a related problem for the reputation/rating system I want to develop: I want there to be a way for people to report negative ratings without being the potential subject of retaliation. I do have some preliminary ideas along those lines, but I'm not sure how easily they can be translated to Hive's reward system.
I agree, reputation system needs to be replaced. Waiting for your ideas and post. The simplest/temporary fix would be the current system which will calculate account activity just for the latest 30 days
I think anonymous downvotes would dramatically improve this system. The reason auto curation on crap can happen is because non-whale users are never going to downvote a post that will harm some whale. If downvotes were anonymous curation could actually work the way it should, in both directions.
Yes, I agree.
Anonymous downvoting will improve the system so that non-whales will get encouraged to downvote without the fear of retaliation from bigger accounts. @blocktrades
I agree on anon downvotes, would be a game changer. Not sure how it's possible.