Recently, the topic of downvotes I brought up has led to another brilliant conclusion, this time aimed at people with a mathematical mindset. The author of this insight is the user @dotevo. To finally deal with downvotes, let us use his example based on the model below and then do some math. ;)
Here is the hypothesis he put forward:
"Once, I described a hypothetical situation to illustrate the main problem, but I think it’s worth adding it here. Imagine two groups of people, for instance, Democrats and Republicans, to keep it thematic. Democrats have a voting power of 1M Hive, and Republicans have 0.9M Hive. For the sake of discussion, let's assume no one else is on the platform. A Republican writes an article, receives votes worth 0.9M Hive, but then downvotes reduce it to 0. Then we have the opposite situation, but after deductions, we end up with 0.1M voting power. It might seem fair, but Hive has fixed inflation. Therefore, the reward strictly depends on the total votes cast in the network. Since there are only two posts, the entire reward pool must be distributed proportionally. That means 100% goes to the Democrat's post and 0 to the Republican's. Even though the communities have similar voting power, the slightly stronger group takes the entire reward."
Source: https://blurt.blog/@dotevo/smyich
@dotevo's example brilliantly illustrates the problematic mechanism of escalating dominance in a system with downvotes.
I extended this example as follows:
"Democrats gain 100% from 0.1M, so the next time there’s a confrontation, Democrats already have 0.2M more. By the third 'round,' they have 0.4M more. This value grows exponentially, dramatically tipping the balance of power toward one group. After just five confrontations, Democrats have twice the voting power of Republicans and can comfortably take over the platform."
Source: https://blurt.blog/@khrom/smyklc
I asked ChatGPT to share its opinion on this topic:
You are absolutely right – the mechanism you describe leads to the "snowball effect." This is a particularly significant issue in systems like Hive, where rewards are proportional to voting power, and accumulated capital (stake) amplifies voting capabilities. Let’s break this down step by step:
1. Accumulation of Rewards and Power Advantage
Suppose Democrats take all the rewards in every "round," while Republicans get none. Since the rewards are reinvested as Hive Power (voting power), the Democrats’ voting power increases each round.
Mathematical example:
- Initial: Democrats: 1M, Republicans: 0.9M.
- After the first round: Democrats take proportional rewards, ending up with 1.1M, while Republicans stay at 0.9M.
- After the second round: Democrats earn rewards based on 1.1M, increasing to 1.2M, while Republicans remain stuck at 0.9M.
- After five rounds: Democrats surpass 2M, while Republicans still have 0.9M.
2. Exponential Growth (Compounding Voting Power)
As Democrats accumulate more rewards, their voting power grows exponentially:
- Greater voting power → greater rewards → even greater voting power.
- Republicans, losing their share, have no way to counter this growth because their votes are effectively neutralized by the Democrats’ higher voting power.
3. Platform Takeover by One Group
Once Democrats have more than twice the voting power, Republicans lose the ability to participate effectively in the system:
- Downvotes by Democrats completely neutralize Republican content.
- Republicans cannot compete effectively for rewards.
- Consequently, all Hive inflation funds flow solely to Democrats.
This leads to COMPLETE dominance by one group, enabling them to take full control of the platform, including:
- The direction of community development.
- Decisions regarding projects funded by the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization).
- Influence over network decisions (e.g., protocol changes).
I went further and attempted to perform more mathematical analysis on our model and compare these systems:
While it takes Democrats just 5 voting rounds to completely take over the platform in a system with downvotes, how does the situation look after 5 rounds in a system WITHOUT downvotes?
I then asked how many rounds it would take to gain dominance on the platform without downvotes, given the same assumptions. Here is the simulation response I received:
In a system without downvotes, Democrats’ dominance over Republicans (achieving twice the voting power) was not reached within:
1000 rounds.
This means the process is significantly slower than in a system with downvotes, and proportional reward distribution better balances the growth of voting power between factions.
If anyone still has doubts as to why a system without downvotes is more stable and less prone to one group taking over, the math speaks for itself.
Practical Observations:
Of course, this situation is purely hypothetical, and in practice, much depends on who buys shares on the exchange. Nonetheless, even if one group gains significant dominance, the situation could still be salvaged and reversed over many years because changes in this system progress more slowly. For every major investor in one group, there could always be an investor in the opposing group.
Final Remark:
The situation stabilizes almost automatically when there are more groups involved!
Conclusion:
So, even if we have two dominant factions and 3–4 or more groups whose members partially support one faction and partially the other, the process of one group gaining dominance over the other may never end in practice.
Opinion from ChatGPT:
Yes, you are right. In a scenario where two dominant factions exist and additional smaller groups (e.g., 3–4 or more) partially support both sides, the process of one faction gaining dominance over the other may indeed never conclude. There are several reasons for this:
1. Dynamic Balancing of Power
- Smaller groups constantly support the dominant factions, with support being diverse and variable (e.g., random or based on preferences).
- Even if one dominant faction gains an advantage in a given round, smaller groups can shift their support to the weaker faction in subsequent rounds. This creates a system of dynamic equilibrium, where differences in voting power between dominant factions remain relatively stable.
2. "Feedback" Mechanism in a Multi-Group System
- When one dominant faction begins to gain an advantage, smaller groups can naturally balance the system by choosing the weaker side to increase its chances. This can be driven by:
- Sympathy for the underdog (e.g., the desire to support diversity).
- Pragmatism (e.g., reducing the dominance of one group to limit the risk of a monopoly).
- Such a mechanism works similarly to an automatic stabilizer in an economic system.
3. Random Factors and Unpredictability of Support
- If the support of smaller groups is random (as in the simulation of random support flows), dominance by one group becomes even less likely. Even minimal changes in support allocation in one round can significantly influence the outcomes of subsequent rounds, causing the process of dominance to practically never reach a conclusion.
4. The Impact of Exponential Growth in Multi-Group Systems
- Exponential growth in dominance systems occurs when one group has a consistently larger share of support. In the case of multiple groups, the flow of support is more distributed, mitigating the rate of dominance escalation for one faction over another.
Numerical Example (2 Dominant Groups and 3 Smaller Groups):
- Group A (Dominant): 1.0 voting power.
- Group B (Dominant): 0.9 voting power.
- Groups C, D, E (Smaller): 0.7, 0.6, 0.5 voting power.
- In each round, smaller groups randomly allocate their support between A and B. Even with slight differences in support allocation, the voting power of dominant groups can remain in a state of relative equilibrium.
Mathematical Proof of Decentralization Without Downvotes:
From a mathematical standpoint, true decentralization of power is ONLY possible in a system without downvotes. Any forms of penalizing the other side radically tip the scales in favor of one group in a very short time, creating trends that are irreversible because the situation often unfolds too quickly to respond effectively.
Regards.
Counterargument: downvotes allow decentralized moderation and allow us to counter spam, and plagiarism. Hive isn't a two-party political system.
your cont argument is overthrown here:
https://peakd.com/hive/@khrom/the-downvote-economy-how-to-steal-the-value-of-someone-s-work-and-get-rich-off-their-efforts
Hive is one party oligarchic system since 3 years now. Reason is above.
And you just repeating Whales propaganda and didn't understand what's going on there.
No, I am someone active in countering spam and plagiarism. Your refusal to see that side of the problem means nothing.
So, as you see he's not refusing to see anything, and you have disparaged and mischaracterized him in the teeth of the many and myriad points he responds with. I have observed you consider yourself to be thoughtful and a beknighted bulwark against disinformation, you so intend to be, you have believed. But days now have passed, and the many piercing points to your prior conception letting lucid light leak in to illuminate your understanding are left unaddressed. Perhaps I was wrong. I often am.
I humbly submit you are hoist on your own petard, yourself refusing to see many facets of what you have said was far simpler, and that you had clarity regarding, but has been revealed to you as inadequately limited and ignoring blatant harm, previously dismissed as unavoidable. Confronted with proof he is wrong, an honest man changes his mind. Zealots must never change their minds, but must disavow, disregard, and declaim any factual information that disproves their beliefs so they can remain faithful to their chosen narrative regardless of the facts. Machiavellian manipulators intent on deceiving double down to continue to delude their prey, devoted to raking in the profits of duplicity despite any and every harm, perhaps even reveling in their malevolence.
I haven't thought you believe yourself either of the latter. Many times you have shown an even devout interest in societal benevolence, a sincere dedication to blessing our community by undertaking even difficult actions, displaying disinterest in your own ease and comfort. You are granted the boon of fresh information here, an opportunity that has gained you greater and more sophisticated understanding that potentiates increasing the benefits your community can enjoy from your contributions. Careful consideration of this information is necessary to fully grasp the nuance of import in the variety of impacts on Hive, forthright speech, and economic consequences, the pros and cons of acting to intervene and not acting to intervene portend. The substantial answer to your misunderstanding and mischaracterization given far exceeds what your brusque ire merited, at least IMHO.
Are you a man that merits such undeserved attention and generosity? You will judge yourself. I have witnessed your sincerity and thought to tickle your considerer, because no response to such substantial discussion is beneath whom I suspect you believe you are. Dismissing such a portential litany tells you things about you I wouldn't have thought you would be satisfied with. You do you, as you will, and I will leave you to it now. Whether you might disagree for good reasons or prefer more time to wrangle the matter behooves a response to the good faith effort awarded you. None loudly speaks disrepect, of your integrity foremost.
What comes out of us is what is in us. No answer is a detailed discourse on your forthright estimation of you, and I will thankfully receive that sincere representation should that be spoken by your silence.
I'm not denying anything, I just have a slightly less limited point of view.
There are many ways to fight plagiarism that are not as harmful as downvotes. I could give you a whole list of such solutions for hive, the problem is that no one will introduce them because since I've been on steem and hive since 2018, they have been brought up hundreds of times, the problem is that no one in power wanted to introduce them because they are afraid of the consequences, which are losing the position of a top witness and easy money from running a node;]
On the other hand, when it comes to "spam", it's a subjective thing, what is spam and what is not. I don't know why you waste your time in life on such nonsense. I have never understood the mentality of people who try to control such things. In a well-built system, it regulates itself and you can clearly see it on Blurt. Spam posts usually barely earn anything because no one wants to read, watch or upvote them, and frontends block and mark such people as spammers, blocking the possibility of voting for such things. If someone wants to, they can, of course, but they have an uphill battle and usually DON'T want to because of that:P On the other hand, if someone buys a stake on the stock exchange and upvotes themselves, what's the point?
They have about 24% return on investment - transaction commissions, so it's basically the same as if they took and bought hbd on your hive and put 20% on it. So why the hell should someone waste their life chasing spammers, voting circles and other nonsense?
Do you see a system based on Censor mentality like this one here is a perversion. A snake that eats its own tail. Downvotes are maybe 10% used to combat spam and abuse, because as I wrote earlier, voting circles are basically not worth it for you because it's better to keep hbd for prosecuting plagiarism and theft, there are appropriate institutions in every country and authors should claim their rights themselves, not some arbitrary and whimsical behavior of some "self-proclaimed wathers"
90% of downvotes are mutual fighting between different factions in order to control the rate and market and centralize power. And also simply to express ordinary hatred, envy, revenge or malice and persecution.
Even if half of the posts were spam and you had to pay all these scammers, the platform still suffers greater losses due to the damage caused by downvoting because innocent people suffer, you alienate good, honest authors and generally create a toxic atmosphere worse than on strongly centralized and censored platforms such as FB. At the same time, you don't even have a fraction of what Facebook has to offer ;]
You are killing your platform and making it resistant to greater adoption, and basically, looking at the stock market charts, it is dying. Nobody simply wants to buy it, apart from the scumbags who like to play gods and screw other people according to their whims, Satanists and Witness buddies who can enjoy protection.
You don't have to look far. I am writing a lengthy article here expressing my own opinion and observations that an intelligent person would treat as valuable content because even if I disagree with you and generally throw dogs at the network, I am doing it in a constructive way, full of commitment and with the hope that one day someone might wise up here and do something about this mess. But no one will reward me for this, I only get downvotes. Am I a spammer? No not really, I was a loyal hive user 3 years ago who brought many people here and promoted the network and also regularly participated. Is what I write plagiarism? absolutely not. I guarantee you that you will not find any content that is on my blog anywhere else. Do I allow abuse? NO I am simply expressing my opinion :P Despite this, a few years ago wathers got mad at me and downvoted every post of mine regardless of whether it was a photo or a post about what I did in my free time, because I wrote incorrectly political things about the plandemic :P
And that's how it works so sorry man don't give me crap about spam because every month 3-4 such people come to Blurt who run away from you for the same reason and then I see their content and it's not spam.
I decided to come over here and have this conversation with you...
And this exact thread is the point.
I agree with your assessment ... I agree with the math.
This place is essentially a Scammy Shitcoin project and circle Jerk for people who Make Believe "They" are doin the right thing. It's ridiculous to run a Downvote this way... It would only be reasonable if it actually caused "Burning" of the rewards. The Backed Dollar they use over here is the basis for Fraud and Theft and puts the user base on the map for Regulatory Compliance... It's how THEY hide the fact that their Downvote is actual THEFT.
Either BURN the rewards with a Downvote or don't have the Downvote.
IT'S WHY THINGS ARE BETTER ON BLURT.
No Downvote and no Backed Dollar Scam.
Thanks for support! you can always re-blog this post to help more. Especially after downvoting session from people who don't like to hear the truth like gtg
help spread this articles so it reaches as many people as possible. Let the hivers who don't know what this system is about understand what it's really about. if it suits them, it's their business, but maybe at least a few people deceived by the misleading slogans about alleged decentralization and web 3 will start thinking and see what a scam it is
Done
and Done!
Let's come straight to the point:
and what is your alternative for a selfregulating mechanism?
to stop abuse without downvotes as such decentralised selfregulating mechanism?
That's a brilliant mathematical analysis, and I deeply appreciate the professional clarity of the post.
Thanks!
Edit: how strange that GTG flagged this brilliant post. Nary a peep as to why. Do you know why @khrom? Perhaps he was just proving your point.
Because he did.
gtg is just trying to prove to others in his own way that what I'm saying is true ;) isn't it @gtg:P
It's a very convincing proof. He has demonstrated perfectly exactly what your post shows mathematically. It's such a blessing to get that kind of support from someone as busy as GTG must be, managing a Hive empire, involved in the project in Poland, Valueplan, and so much else, it's amazing he has found the time to provide definitive proof and so well demonstrate your thesis.
exactly! I feel very honored :)
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 5/45) Liquid rewards.