I would love to be wrong about it but I'm pretty sure that people competing into the depths of the reverse auction is the only thing that makes curation spread across a wide array of posts more efficient than everyone just piling onto whatever is already hot/trending, and for most people it is also the largest obstacle to optimizing any form of voting automation.
Currently if you see a new post voted into $100+ then there's no curation to be done - go look for smaller people, which is perfect conceptually even if there's a flaw in the execution. After this change however, it sounds very likely that it will be optimal to dogpile into anything that already has traction, knowing it might gain more the next day, which is literally the exact opposite of what the original curation system was made to do.
I am curious as to why we need to have any kind of algorithm at all based on time.
Why can't the votes simply be calculated based on one's HP, and not be affected at all by time as long as it's between 0 minutes and 7 days. I feel like it shouldn't matter whether or not you vote in the first second, or the last second. Your payout should be the same regardless of what others do.
our payout should be the same regardless of what others do.this is not a curation system - it is a braindead staking system.
the ordering of votes was supposed to reward curators, and the reverse auction would diminish overall % of post payout into curation rewards on larger accounts as more and more people delve into those first 30 minutes (originally) then 5 minutes (after people forgot the point) and now 0 (possible aneurysm levels of misunderstanding) I do not think this solves any problems of the systems that came before it other than to offer the sentiment of "something changed" to anyone that didn't like or understand it, but again, I would love to be wrong about it, since if I'm wrong it could only mean good things - currently I see nothing positive about "we deleted one of the smartest innovations of the entire blockchain instead of improving it"
The problem is that a gamer's gonna game, and if it's able to be easily exploited then it will be, which it has been. The curation system was clever in principle, but once it's out in the wild and behavior comes into play then we run into all of the problems that we had.
The question as I see it is, how do we build a system that is incredibly easy for the average user to understand, fair, clever and innovative, yet unprofitable to game using bots etc.
Of course it's a sticky situation, large investors with a lot of skin in the game do expect to have some sort of advantage. It's a tough thing to design!
This is exactly my thoughts too.
Under the current system, someone who votes with redfish or minnow status is lucky to get 10% of their vote values returned, while the whales enjoy 120% or more of their vote values returned in curation. How is that even remotely fair? Hopefully that kind of inequity gets fixed in the next HF.
Curation should NOT be complicated. If you are supposed to get 50% back, then make it so! Don't say it is so, but in reality skew the algorithm to favour the whale votes and rob the little votes. And if all votes had a set value (not determined by cumulative vote values), the idea of voting for trending posts is removed. Fixing these voting issues will do wonders for adoption.
sure, they are "lucky" to get 10% back as curation rewards if they are not curating.
meanwhile it favors the exact opposite of what you describe - smaller votes are easier to gain much higher % from curation than larger votes, which is why most of the best curators never use 100% votes unless the post is really worth it. Now they can just dump 100% on basically anything and have no incentive to spread out to vote on the little guys, because the reverse auction was THE ONLY THING that prevented everyone from piling onto the same giant accounts for curation rewards - as is exactly why it existed in the first place.
I don't know where you get your information from. I haven't seen the code used to derive the results, but I can look at what the little people get from their curation and what the big votes get from theirs by using Hivetasks to check people's accounts.
As for the 5-minute penalty: I doubt that makes much of a difference if you have to wait 5 minutes or if you can vote immediately. Auto-voters don't mind waiting. Just set your 'follow' to accounts you know get whale votes and you are good to go. All votes get amplified if there is a big reward on any given post, making the rich get richer while the little people get robbed of the reward pool's shrunken size. The entire system is messed up and needs to be changed.
If all votes, regardless of HP, had a fixed value from a scale of 1 to 10 then the voter could give a larger or smaller vote based on perceived vale of the content, yet the value of the vote is irrelevant to the voter's HP.
5-minute penalty: I doubt that makes much of a differenceI'm sorry, but this says more about your understanding than you know. It made a MASSIVE difference.
It was the primary incentive for dispersion, and the primary anti-stagnation mechanic. It was the bunker-buster for autovotes, the only reason I ever had to check on anything, update anything, or think about anything.
I expect autovoting to become even more prevalent once people notice the changes, and I expect closed-circuit circlejerking to become twice as common if the possibility of higher curation returns are "fixed". Meanwhile an entire week of posts were flagged as curation-forfeited and anyone aware has been profiting enough to completely negate any detriment they might incur. I literally voted down the list of top payouts like a checklist to get higher % returns than anyone that has ever done real curation.
Just because something needs to be changed in order to be improved, doesn't mean changing it is an improvement by default. I can't say for certain if the overall picture is better or worse since so much of it is sentiment-based and depends on the nature of people involved, but from my perspective that is the only advantage of the change - sentiment.
scale of 1 to 10 to give a larger or smaller voteYou can already scale voting weight, and most UI will show this as a slider once you reach 500 or 1000 HP, because otherwise it's splitting dust.
however, this notion:
value of the vote is irrelevant to the voter's HPis complete nonsense, because anyone can make 1000+ accounts.
anything done to help "the little guy" also helps "the bot army".
maybe you meant something else by that, I'm not sure.
as for
where you get your information froma 6-digit number of votes has given me a little experience.
Go ahead and try making 1,000 accounts with 142 HP each. See if you can earn any curation rewards at all with so little HP. Then you will understand what I'm talking about.
Been there, done that.
Are you suggesting that making it easier would be an improvement?
In that case, a braindead staking system replacing curation would be a good start, because micromanaging and optimizing automation with reverse auction involved was 100 times harder than it is now. So the next thing people need to whine about is dust payouts until they're "rounded up" and just like magic there will be a massive influx of new accounts. Not new people, but we can pretend they are people.
notion of vote value being irrelevant to the voter's HP is nonsense
this is like saying blank account with no HP should have infinite RC
misunderstanding of what makes steem/hive viable in the first place
In the meantime the 'everyone's a winner' mentality for deleting curation is going to start corroding the lease market until the highest bids are all the self-voting circlejerk closed systems that are more prone to dumping all their hive than basically any other category of person, because curators can no longer outbid and compete with them consistently, which means the circlejerking operations just became a lot more profitable.
I don't know... it seems no matter what one does, someone will figure out how to abuse the system. All I know is that the current system penalizes the little guy and rewards those who already have plenty. If the little guys were given a fair share, I think there would be more on-boarding of new people. As it currently stands, the small account votes are worth nothing and all those dust votes are collected and given to someone. Getting rid of the 2-cent cut-off would be a good start. At least the small accounts would then have a chance of growing, albeit slowly. The other aspect I would like to see changed is that everyone gets an equivalent share of their curation rewards; those with more HP should not get exponentially more of the pot than the small accounts and voting on popular (large payout) articles should have no relevance to how much of a cut you get. That way, there is no need to vote for the popular articles and one could safely vote for what you really like rather than vote for the biggest returns.