There are no financial incentives for the voters on youtube. And yet they still vote.
There is no financial incentives for HIVE users to re-blog posts. And yet they still re-blog.
You "never said early voting was a good idea" you merely suggested that taking it away was "a bad idea".
Isn't that the same thing? Iff you're truly neutral on the concept, it seems hard to imagine you'd even bother commenting on it. I'm simply wondering what you believe are the "benefits" of the current system which results in so much "band-wagon" autovoting.
Downvoting spiked after the free downvote bar was added. If you're main concern is "low quality content", then please explain how the "fix" (free downvotes) would be even slightly changed by removing the early voting incentives? The downvoting incentives would remain totally unaffected. Fully intact.
And what is fairness? Don't you think it's generally considered a "level playing field" that doesn't automatically favor a small group of established players (who also happen to write the rules of the game)?
People do love a lottery!
Have you considered injecting some randomness (like bitcoin) into the "reward pool" distribution instead of automatically shoveling it into the hungry mouths of those who already "won the most rewards"?
When I come up with a set of incentives that could cover fairness, abuse, merits, etc., I'll need to discuss these ideas with intelligent and influential individuals like yourself.
Until then, I haven't offered a single "complaint".
I'm certain, if you look carefully, you'll notice that I'm simply asking questions in order to better understand how the current system operates and what opinions are held by knowledgeable individuals.
I merely suggested that "change it" is not good enough. There are other things to consider.
You don't want to sub one problem for another. Hive isn't build to have easy "hard forks" like some of the other projects are trying.
I would rather this to be something more people think about and come up with ideas. I won't pretend I'm smart enough to come up with incentives.
As for voting on YouTube, I'm sure some peeps think it helps their content creators. Even reblogs here sometimes help with extra votes. I know for a fact that several people look at my reblog list and I do the same to them.
The incentives there are not direct financial gains, but there are incentives.
I do admit, a random factor could be interesting. Imagine the curation payout has the top 3 payouts to curators as "random" and then resume standard calculations.
And that's exactly what I'm looking for. What do you believe are the important things to consider?
I agree. Every member should be involved, but it seems like there's often a rush-to-disqualify non-technical voices.
That would be amazing.
Since voting behavior is what we are looking at.
Take the equal weight example:
That would certainly increase the number of transactions. But people may get less because a larger stakeholder might just spread so far and thin to prevent downvotes from coming for "overrewarded".
For manual curators, that could be great. For lazy curators and/or trolls, what's preventing them from doing something on day 6, given the decaying nature of votes past that 6.5 day mark?
I'm sure you've seen Marky there being hounded by the Venezuelan community for locking them out of bigger upvotes due to him voting them early with $2 votes.
Equal weight sounds great. Would it shift voting time towards 6.5 day? Since you get what you vote, it makes sense to vote on something that would pay you out quickly.
Would that be a bad thing? In the above scenario, curators wouldn't have to worry about something is too overvalued.
At the same time, would many people fall through the cracks because the decaying voting window past 6.5 days? Would that decrease average earnings even further because there's no reason for those trying to maximize to give out bigger votes. Instead, they want to rake in faster by voting at the last possible second.
Idk how relevant or accurate those presumptions are. They are just some thoughts.
I haven't heard anything about this. How does a $2 vote "lock them out"?? I'm definitely missing something here.
It's the misaligned incentives.
Large curators don't want to vote on things already with several dollars on it because that hurt their curation rewards.
So, some content creators feel like they got "robbed" of more rewards. It's kinda comical really. Never thought I would see the day when people complain about upvotes. Sounds really entitled, but it does underscore an issue.
That the current early voting incentives are not ideal.
https://peakd.com/hive/@themarkymark/i-am-the-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing
Nice,
Flattening the payout curve (removing early voting incentives) wouldn't change the total value of all votes cast.
This would have no effect on "average earnings" for all-members.
This would definitely reduce the "average earnings" of the current TOP EARNERS.
But it would definitely increase the "average earnings" of everyone who is NOT a top earner.