Isn't the reason for the seven day window also to prevent delegating one's HP to several different accounts to be able to self-upvote own posts several times?
I don't think so, as the 7 day post reward window existed before delegation. But I think the delegation "return delay" is based off the 7 day post reward window, to prevent abuse of the type you mention. So it would likely need adjustment if the duration of the post reward window changed.
I agree that the current curation reward system is still not tuned very well. As you've mentioned, it has become obvious that the super-linear reward for early voters hasn't done one of the jobs it was designed for: to reward manual curators versus bots. But it was also designed to discourage "pile-on" voting where everyone just votes on the same trending posts, because later votes give less curation rewards. Again, it's possible it's not really doing this either, hard to say for sure.
But proper tuning is actually quite difficult, IMO, because the intersection of economics and human behavior is often more complicated than people expect. It may turn out that the only way to find something that works well is to keep making adjustments.
Cap all rewards at $20 hive.
That way, when a post maxes out, curators and bots will have to go searching for new authors.
The bots will just keep voting on the same maxed out posts which will give a distinct advantage to the humans!
I think that limit would be way too low to differentiate between 'great' and 'not so great' posts.
I'm not convinced that total payout is the most reliable indicator of a "great post".
The burnposts make tons of money for curators and ste.emcleeners (not exactly content that would appeal to the public at large) was the most consistent top earner.
What about a cap of $50 ?
The overwhelming majority of the posts I make and vote on make less than $0.25
Big payouts don't seem to attract readers or commentators, but they do seem to attract autovoters like flies.
Not always in reality, but in theory I think that if a post is 'great' (I know that's not easy to define) the author deserves 'quite some' (again it's not easy to name an exact number) reward. :)
I am not a fan of such strict limits, because actually I like the freedom to upvote whatever I want (also if already many other users liked the same post). I would prefer incentives to spread one's upvotes to many different authors, like for example 'diminishing returns', which wouldn't forbid to upvote the same users again and again but made it less beneficial.
Also the ideas I discussed with @blocktrades could lead to less vote accumulation on the posts of 'famous' users.
I agree with you that the rewards for many short posts from 'popular' authors (often witnesses) are way to high, considering the information they offer and their content quality.
I'd rather get 10 fractions of a penny from 10 different people than 100 fractions of a penny from one person.
You seem pretty well informed, is there any way to get a page view counter integrated that might be able to roughly estimate the number of people who spent more than 20 seconds reading a post?
That sounds promising. Something like one vote per person per week at 100% and then if you vote for that same person again within the same week, your max vote gets cut by 10% each time?
You've guessed correctly.
(at)cheetah consistently gets over $20 per post for basically automatic spam (log files).
That would be possible, but I think no witness is suggesting it.
When I first joined, there was a view counter. The consensus on why it was taken away was due to complaints POB was dead and posts with hundred(s) of votes only had like 3 or 4 views. From bidbots to autovoters it was obvious most of the highest paid posts received very few actual eyes on them.
The problem with this is many in the upper echelon of stake holdings have quite a few accounts. As a side note, I noticed very early on here that the reward/inflation math doesn't hold up to the narrative, or else we wouldn't be using terms like reward pool rape (I always found that term ludicrous) or selfish people voting their own posts. For a crowd that projects love of ownership and freedom, the witch hunts I've witnessed over folks using their own stake for self profit is something else. Yet you never see folks just saying the math doesn't work well enough for folks to be self centered, as it would leave crumbs or less for those with little stake. And I say this as someone who hasn't maximized for self profit, so I have no personal agenda when pointing out this observation.
When I first joined, there was a view counter. The consensus on why it was taken away was due to complaints POB was dead and posts with hundred(s) of votes only had like 3 or 4 views. From bidbots to autovoters it was obvious most of the highest paid posts received very few actual eyes on them.
This is phenomenal.
WTF.
How about if the "reward pool" was distributed to the posts with the most and or longest average PAGE VIEWS!!??
It always seemed stupid to scoop up all the crumbs and shovel them into the mouths of the RICH.
I mean, at least if it was some sort of randomized LOTTERY (like bitcoin mining) some of the small fish might get a chance to catch a break at some point without having to wait to be ORDAINED by the OLIGARCHY.
100% THIS.
Perhaps,
Of course you are right! How time sometimes can blur the memory ... It's much more logical that the delegation "return delay" has been adapted to the post rewards window than reversed. :)
I wonder if curation rewards should solely depend on the weight of the upvote? So that neither the date of the upvote nor the number and strength of upvotes of other users would influence the curation rewards of a curator (but only his HP and the percentage of the upvote).
I know that would make self-votes on comments etc. more interesting again, however, at least for the author it would still be more beneficial to get more upvotes than only his own self-vote.
So as curve for the author rewards we could stick with convergent linear, but for curation rewards the simple formula that curation rewards would only depend on the vote weight of the curator could apply?
I know the matter is complicated and maybe my ideas have more weak points than I am aware at a first glance ...
Someone actually suggested your curation reward idea recently. It may be better than what we have now, but one potential problem is it might lead to more self voting. That could potentially be countered by downvoting, but so far all signs point that downvoting just doesn't happen much, no matter how the rules are changed.
Interesting (and good) to know that this idea is actually being discussed, and that some stakeholders are aware of the suboptimal curation situation (which can be quite frustrating for users who try to curate manually)!
Concerning my idea, right, the self-votes are a problem, the flags part of a possible solution.
Actually, I would modify my idea above in a way that reduced the benefits of self-voting:
I know that the probability to see this last step is rather low ...
Some time ago I had the idea of 'diminishing returns' (against self- and circle-voting) when upvoting the same accounts again and again (within a short timeframe), but it seems that can be circumvented by creating many alt accounts (even if it still should be suspicious and detectable if a certain group of accounts only upvotes each other).
... I will keep thinking about possible other solutions ...
I don't understand why "self-voting" is considered a crime.
And if it's so horrifying, can't you just restrict it in code?
I wouldn't call it a "crime", but in case everybody just upvoted themselves there wasn't any (financial) incentive anymore to produce 'quality content'.
There also wasn't any reason anymore for new users to join, start posting, tell their friends to join too (network effect), and thus increase the value of HIVE.
That's not that easy (even if there would be ideas) because of the possibility to create multiple accounts.
I disagree.
Many of the largest stake holders merely delegate their stake to earn dividends (like (at)freedom).
They don't "create quality content" and they are fully "content quality agnostic" as long as they get their dividend payouts.
Most small to medium sized accounts are here to share their interests and hope to get a few pennies of encouragement.
And many forums (even small ones) disable self-voting.
It can't possibly be that complicated to enact, and at least it would signal to the "honest" that the behavior is frowned upon.
I never would have guessed that powerful players might destroy my rep for such a thing.
Especially since nobody clearly states "the rules".
And as far as "multiple accounts" go, the best fix for that would be to disable the automatic delegations for new members.
Many behemoth sites started out as "invite only" (it creates an air of prestige and exclusivity) and I'm sure people would even sign-up to voluntarily coach and sponsor new members with a small delegation (I know I would).
If the new member remained inactive, or only voted (or downvoted) on the same accounts over and over, after issuing a polite warning, the sponsor could withdraw the delegation.
No, you don't. :)
If that what you write is true, that doesn't mean that what I wrote was wrong.
There are several kinds of behaviours which are bad for the platform. Self-voting is just one among others.
That wouldn't prevent several accounts of a single user to upvote each other.
There IS financial incentive for small fish (who only wield below minimum payout votes) to produce content that attracts upvotes (from accounts wielding above minimum payout votes).
But it would disincentivize people setting up free accounts in order to combine their collective voting power (from automatic newb delegations) at virtually no cost (getting money for nothing).
Splitting your OWN stake between multiple accounts gives you NO advantages in terms of reward pool percentages.