I imagine many have seen the post from Calumam "75/25 would it work?" where he talks about the idea of changing how the reward works in the Proof of Brain community. And he wrote this based on another post written by Felipejoys "The answer to the Proof of Brain "trails" dilemma: compromise" where Felipe talks about the voting automation problem(I recommend reading it).
To summarize a bit, Calumam's post is about the rewards in the community, which are divided into 50% for the author and 50% for those who vote for the post. The new idea he puts on the table is to change the system from this 50%-50% to one of 75%-25%, that is, the authors will receive 75% of the rewards and the curators 25% of the rewards.
Well, I will give my opinion about the rewards as stated in Calumam's post and at the end I will give the numbers that I think would work better and why (yes, I think the numbers should be changed but not so drastically).
Calumam thinks that the 75%-25% proposal has the following advantages.
- Creators are rewarded better
- The increasing gap between high stakeholders and lower stakeholders shrinks
- More liquidity for the market
- More tokens are burned from burn posts for those who think it's a great idea
Without thinking too much I could say that I agree with the first three points, the fourth does not seem to me an advantage, especially for the POB token of which there will only be 21 million. I think those tokens that are given as a reward for these burn posts could perfectly be used to reward the authors of the community.
And well, I said that without thinking too much I agreed with the first three but for me it's a bit difficult not to think too much (😅 many times that's why I can't even write about something, when you have too many ideas at the same time in your head it's very difficult to organize them, at least for me).
The first advantage is true, creators will receive 25% more reward for writing. This will result in people writing more or, who knows, even with more quality to receive that increased reward on their posts which may seem positive at first glance but... there is always a but.
You can already see clearly in the community feed the indiscriminate use of the #proofofbrain TAG for any type of post, even for posts of just one sentence with an image (and I clarify that I have nothing against this type of posts, which I also do from time to time but in which I don't use the POB TAG, that's my personal decision). This increase of the reward percentage I'm sure will increase the indiscriminate use of the TAG which I don't think is so positive. I should clarify that this abuse of the TAG is somewhat inevitable due, above all, to the current value of the token (or so I think).
The second advantage of reducing the gap between those who have more and those who have less I don't think it will happen in the near future as the current gap between those who have more and those who have less is quite accentuated. Despite making the change by giving only 25% reward for votes those with the most will still gain enough from their votes alone to maintain this gap for quite some time(I am being realistic and just looking at the numbers, leaving aside any personal opinions I may have as in this particular case personal opinions don't matter).
The third will only happen if the majority sell all their tokens as soon as they earn them and do not turn them into POB Power. At this point I will give my personal approach, I know there are people who need the money to live and I have no problem with people selling what they earn. But I don't think that right now that is the great majority, I think that many people here know the value of having POB Power and have the possibility to live without selling everything they earn. And besides, we must remember that there will only be 21 million POB tokens ... liquidity will be complicated.
And this brings me to the things that Calumam sees as negative on the issue of changing the way the reward works.
- More liquidity on the market = more buying opportunities for HIVE/TRIBE whales (everyone really, but we know who comes out on top)*
- Less quality curation because of smaller rewards?
- Unattractive to investors looking to autovote (could be a pro)
- Faster stake growth from circle-jerking (POB -> other tribes more specifically)
The first is almost the same as the third of the advantages but as a disadvantage because of the "whales" that can corner the market. I would say that this is somewhat inevitable. It is normal that the vast majority earn their tokens by writing and voting and there are always some investors who are the ones who buy the tokens in the market. You might also think that saying that this is a disadvantage is somewhat contradictory because the normal thing would be to think that the more of these investors there are in the community the better for the value of the token and therefore for the profits of those who write. As I said before, I think it is something inevitable and I do not see it as an advantage or disadvantage but as something normal in a system like this.
The second disadvantage may or may not happen. It is good that Calumam has put this one between question marks. My personal opinion with the 75%-25% numbers when it comes to distributing the reward is that the quality of the vote will decline and voting will become more automated, much in the style of what happens in HIVE. Although this can also happen with the kind of rewards we have now. The larger the community, the more likely this will happen, regardless of the type of reward division. And the possibility to automate voting and create voting trials are there to be used, they are just tools in this game and as with the voting power...
... how to use them is where the whole question lies.
About the third disadvantage, I think I already said what I think talking about the first one. This is something inevitable in this kind of systems and even, it can be seen as an advantage.
And well, the fourth one, if I understood it well, I think I already said my opinion talking about what would happen if more would be earned and about the indiscriminate use of the #proofofbrain TAG. I'm sure it will increase.
I would go more for splitting the reward 60% to the authors and 40% to those who vote.
I definitely believe that authors should earn a little more than 50% and it seems to me that a 10% increase is something that gets noticed. And the earnings per curation will still be high enough to continue to ensure quality curations(this would be in an ideal world, we know the reality is a bit different) and also ensure the necessary investors who would earn 40% for their curations if they were only dedicated to that and didn't want to write(earning 20 tokens for a vote or earning 16 I don't think it makes much difference to a whale, although I imagine there are their cases, I don't know).
It's a bit like Antonym says in his post "Answering the distribution question in POB - Should we do the 75/25 split?", not changing what is working, although in my case it would be, change just a bit and make it a bit more interesting for those who use their brains and produce content and at the same time not so harmful for those who will use their brains to read, analyze and vote for that same content.
And I think that can be achieved with the 60%-40% reward split.
En Español.
Imagino que muchos han visto el post Calumam "75/25 would it work?" donde él habla sobre la idea de cambiar como funciona la recompensa en la comunidad Proof of Brain. Y él escribió esto basado en otro post escrito por Felipejoys "The answer to the Proof of Brain "trails" dilemma: compromise" en el cual se habla sobre el problema de la automatización del voto.(recomiendo leerlo)
Para resumir un poco, el post de Calumam es sobre la recompensas en la comunidad, la cual se dividen en un 50% para los autores y el otro 50% para los que votan por el post. La nueva idea que él pone sobre la mesa es cambiar el sistema de este 50%-50% a uno de 75%-25%, es decir, los autores recibirán 75% de las recompensas y los curadores 25% de las mismas.
Bueno, daré mi opinión sobre el tema de la recompensas como está expuesto en el post de Calumam y al final daré los números que yo creo que funcionarían mejor y el por qué(sí, yo creo que se deberían cambiar los numero pero no tan drásticamente).
Calumam piensa que la propuesta del 75%-25% tiene las ventajas siguientes.
- Los creadores son mejor recompensados
- La brecha creciente entre el grupo de con más tokens y el grupo con menos tokens se reduce
- Más liquidez para el mercado
- Se queman más tokens en los burn posts para los que piensan que eso es una gran idea
Sin pensar mucho pudiera decir que estoy de acuerdo con los tres primeros puntos, el cuarto no me parece una ventaja, sobre todo para el token de POB del cual solo habrán 21 millones. Creo que esos tokens que se dan como recompensa a estos burn posts podrían perfectamente ser usados para recompensar a los autores de la comunidad.
Y bueno, dije que sin pensar mucho estaba de acuerdo con los tres primeros pero para mi es un poco difícil no pensar mucho (😅 muchas veces por eso no puedo ni escribir sobre algo, cuando tienes demasiadas ideas a la misma vez en la cabeza es muy difícil organizarlas, al menos para mi).
La primera ventaja es cierta, los creadores van a recibir un 25% más de recompensa por escribir. Esto dará como resultado que la gente escriba más o, quien sabe, con más calidad para recibir ese aumento de recompensas en sus posts lo que puede parecer positivo a primera vista pero... siempre hay un pero.
Ya se puede ver claramente en el feed de la comunidad el uso indiscriminado del TAG #proofofbrain para cualquier tipo de post, incluso para posts de solo una oración con una imagen (y aclaro que no tengo nada en contra de este tipo de posts, el cual yo hago también de vez en cuando pero en el que no uso el TAG de POB, pero esa es mi decisión personal). Este aumento del porciento de la recompensa estoy seguro que aumentará el uso indiscriminado del TAG lo cual no creo que sea tan positivo. Debo aclarar que este abuso del TAG es algo inevitable debido, sobre todo, al valor actual del token (o eso pienso yo).
La segunda ventaja de reducir la brecha entre los que tienen más y los que tienen menos no creo que pase en un futuro cercano pues la brecha actual entre los que tienen más y los que tienen menos es bastante acentuada. A pesar de hacer el cambio dando solo 25% de recompensa a los votos los que tienen más seguirán ganando suficiente con solo sus votos para mantener esta brecha por bastante tiempo(estoy siendo realista y solo mirando los números, dejando de lado cualquier opinión personal que pueda tener ya que en este caso en particular no importan opiniones personales).
La tercera solo pasaría si la mayoría vende todos sus tokens en cuanto los ganen y no los convierta en POB Power. En este punto voy a dar mi enfoque personal, yo se que hay gente que necesita el dinero para vivir y no tengo ningún problema con que la gente venda lo que gane. Pero no creo que ahora mismo esa sea la gran mayoría, creo que muchos acá conocen el valor de tener POB Power y tienen la posibilidad de vivir sin vender todo lo que ganan. Y además, hay que recordar que solo habrán 21 millones token POB ... la liquidez estará complicada.
Y esto me lleva a las cosas que Calumam ve negativas en cuanto al tema de cambiar la forma en que funciona la recompensa.
- *Más liquidez en el mercado = más oportunidades de compra para las ballenas de HIVE/TRIBUS (todo el mundo en realidad, pero ya sabemos quién sale ganando).
- ¿Menos calidad en la curación debido a que las recompensas son menores?
- Poco atractivo para los inversores que buscan el auto voto (podría ser una ventaja)
- Crecimiento más rápido por la participación en el circle-jerking (POB -> otras tribus más específicamente)
La primera es casi igual que la tercera de las ventajas pero como una desventaja por las "ballenas" que pueden acaparar el mercado. Yo diría que esto es algo inevitable. Lo normal es que la gran mayoría gane sus tokens escribiendo y votando y siempre hayan algunos inversores que sean los que compren los token en el mercado. También se pudiera pensar que decir que esto es una desventaja es algo contradictorio porque lo normal sería pensar que mientras más de estos inversores haya en la comunidad sería mejor para el valor del token y por ende, para las ganancias de los que escriban. Como dije antes, creo que es algo inevitable y no lo veo ni como ventaja o desventaja sino como algo normal en un sistema como este.
La segunda desventaja puede pasar y puede que no. Es bueno que Calumam haya puesto esta entre signos de interrogación. Mi opinión personal con los números de 75%-25% a la hora de repartir la recompensa es que la calidad del voto decaerá y se automatizará más el voto, muy al estilo de lo que pasa en HIVE. Aunque esto también puede pasar teniendo el tipo de recompensa que tenemos ahora. Mientras más grande sea la comunidad, mayores probabilidades habrán de que esto pase, independientemente del tipo de división de recompensa. Y la posibilidad de automatizar el voto y crear trials de votación están ahí para ser usadas, son herramientas más en este juego y como con el poder de voto...
... la forma de usarlas es donde reside toda la cuestión.
Sobre la tercera desventaja, creo que ya dije lo que pienso hablando sobre la primera. Esto es algo inevitable en este tipo de sistemas e incluso, puede ser visto como una ventaja.
Y bueno, la cuarta, si la entendí bien, creo que ya dije mi opinión hablando sobre lo que pasaría si se ganara más y sobre el uso indiscriminado del TAG #proofofbrain. Estoy seguro que aumentará.
Yo iría mas por dividir la recompensa en un 60% a los autores y un 40% para los que votan.
Definitivamente creo que los autores deben ganar un poco más que el 50% y me parece que un aumento del 10% es algo que se hace notar. Y las ganancias por curación seguirán siendo lo bastante altas para seguir asegurando curaciones de calidad(esto sería en un mundo ideal, sabemos que la realidad es un poco diferente) y también asegurar los necesarios inversionistas que ganarían un 40% por sus curaciones si solamente se dedicaran a eso y no quisieran escribir (ganar 20 tokens por un voto o ganar 16 no creo que haga mucha diferencia para una ballena, aunque imagino que hay sus casos, no lo se).
Es un poco como dice Antonym en su post "Answering the distribution question in POB - Should we do the 75/25 split?", no cambiar lo que está funcionando, aunque en mi caso sería, cambia solo un poco y hazlo un poco más interesante para los que usan su cerebro y producen contenido y a la vez no tan dañino para los que van a usar su cerebro para leer, analizar y votar por ese mismo contenido.
Y creo que eso se puede lograr dividiendo la recompensa en 60%-40%.
Yes, when it comes to adjustments to the rewards, if there's to be any, I'd go with 60-40 as the right balance.
If there are rules, they will be gamed so we can only hope that those who have accumulated large stakes use their positions wisely.
It is the most feasible adjustment I see, and I think it would have its advantages over the 50-50 as well.
The most important thing in the game is the players. For now I think the "whales" we have are positive "whales" :) which is good.
Make it 75-25, and this will instantly turn a "positive" whales in to "negative" whales.
At least one.
But I have a little doubt there will be only one...
This 75-25 reminds me of STEEMIT, which (I always had hopes) went away from my life once and for ever.
Good to have you around giving your point of view :)
hahaha I have that doubt too.
What you say about the 75-25 numbers I can imagine (I also knew Steemit) and your negative response to that change is not surprising either, especially from the point of view of someone who has invested in the token.
My question would be, how much of an affect would you see if 60-40 numbers were handled?
I think the present 50-50 ratio has not reasons to be changed.
The 60-40 move would noticeably reduce my manual curation time, but probably will not yet trigger the start of removement of my investments in POB. At least - I would stop buying, and will direct my excess funds into other directions, other tribes
Thanks for the answer.
I actually do not want to change anything, but I read about the idea of change and I personally don't like 75-25 either. I decided to contribute to the debate with the 60-40 numbers that I've been thinking about since I was in STEEMit.
In the end the only thing that really matters is the price of hive. That shpould go up when we have more posters, less low quality downvotes scaring people of and rewrds a little higher than currently so 75% looks fine to me.
This is kind of true , in the end everything is tied to HIVE. But HIVE is something different than POB I think, or at least, there are additional things to take into account when talking about HIVE. Hive is an ecosystem and POB just one token in it.
Will read this later
This is more specific to the Proof of Brain community but can be transposed perfectly to HIVE or any other community in the ecosystem.
Hmmm... isn’t this going backwards ? Didn’t we try this on Steemit . I think 50/50 is better to encourage good curation. IMHO
That's what I think would happen if a change is made to 75-25. 60-40 doesn't seem to me such a drastic change and at the same time it rewards a little more the authors without affecting so much those who are dedicated to curing only. Personally it seems fairer to me.
I think that good curation depends mostly on whether there is good content.
Achieving a fair balance is always complicated, my idea was to give a point of view on a change in the reward that would be as balanced as possible for both authors and voters.
i would like to comment on the whale part, where many fear that this will turn into another project controlled by a few. like you say it is almost inevitable. the community has different demographics. there are people who need this to survive and those who want to grow their influence and those who want to do both. i think it easy to move from each group. for example, people can earn enough not to sell so much by improving their living conditions and possibly invest in things that can sustain their lifestyle. and there are whales who can also easily dump on the community. so it is a mix of both. there are no right or wrongs here in my opinion. it all boils down to the direction the community wants to move toward and if we agree collective i think the move can be favourable in the end
Yes! In the end, everything will depend on the behavior of the players, regardless of the rules of the game.
I chimed in on this one too. I think 50/50 is good. Author rewards are higher than anywhere because investors feel good about the way things are. I don't think the price/rewards will be as good if we change it.
I wouldn't really change anything either. It's just that I saw Calumam's post talking about that proposed change and it occurred to me to give mine. This 60-40 numbers is something I've been thinking about since STEEM. It has always seemed fairer to me for everyone. 75-25 doesn't take into account investors or people who just curate, 60-40 is pretty close to 50-50 giving only 10% more to the content creators who are, I think, the reason for being of a social network of blogs.
This can happens for sure with a drastic change as it could be 75-25.
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
Congratulations @juanmiguelsalas! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 81000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPSupport the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!