If you have any opinion on this or see any flaws in my analysis let me know. I could very well be wrong. I'm still trying to think this through.
https://steemit.com/non-linear/@felixxx/more-n-2#@teamsteem/re-felixxx-more-n-2-20180216t122110302z
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The posts on the front page are getting the most votes and rshares... regardless of linear or not. I get the idea that it makes self voting less profitable, but if I look at the accounts getting the most votes right now... The idea of them getting more of the reward pool is a turn off to me.
I barely understand it though. I wish I was clearer on the possible outcomes. I sure hated the non-linear reward curve when we had it.
I get the same concern about how the rewards would look but I think that's mostly due to the initial distribution.
No matter what they would look like, under the current system 100% self upvote is the best "strategy" and everyone who's not engaging in it is doing it at their own expanse and to the profit of the abusers.
I'm not sure exactly what this entails but what if everyone end up voting for themselves 10 times a day or simply self voting getting out of hand? Is this what the current system will lead too and what would prevent this? I don't know.
Is it something someone could do a fake comparison? I am thinking no, because we can't simulate who would stop self-voting?
Ha! That conversation and thinking is very enlightening to me. It's really making me think about the subject in ways I hadn't before.
Under n^2 those who hold the most SP under 1 account are the one who are advantaged as opposed to the current system where anyone engaging in 100% self-upvoting are the one advantaged.
I think that's pretty much what it comes down to. At the same time I'm not totally satisfied with my analysis. I feel like there's still something I might be missing but I'm not sure.
Do you think current set-up of the trending and hot lists is correct? Should trending relate to the value of upvotes or the number of upvotes? For example, one post may have 4 upvotes worth 400 SBD and another post with 50 upvotes worth 5 SBD. The post with the 4 initial big upvotes will ultimately end up with more upvotes but only because of the exposure gained on the trending page. A person can upvote with bots and get on the trending list (I did this several weeks back). Is this really trending? Curation trails can also artificially boost the number of upvotes, even a higher number of upvotes may not be an indication of what is actually trending. How about we don't have a trending list at all? We could have a system of categories customized to our preferences. I think there are several ways to go but I think the current system definitely needs improving.
I also think it is strange that there is an option to upvote a post without needing to even open it. I always check to see if the content is worth upvoting rather than rely on just the title.
There's no way to prevent upvote on post people haven't read.
As for the trending page, I think there can be many type of algorithms and many trending page. Communities will also help in that regard.
Obviously the number of votes can easily be gamed so I don't think number of votes are going to be prevalent in many trending algorithm though they might still have their place sometimes.
What ive always wanted was a trending page for different activities , not just a big pile of mashups.
Vids, sounds, zaps, especially zaps should have their own tab they go to.
This would really help in sorting things out, zappl especially would finally be able tl take of.
More than trending page, let there be a separate switch for each major sevices, just like tags, but, i dont know. . . . . . More interactive .
Yep, bring back the n2 and the whale experiment at 100mv.
Chumming the waters with $5 votes on newbs' posts will bring in the masses, imo.
I don't agree with going back to the experiment. That send a signal to whales to sell their stake because they can't use it. What about if a whales agree to the experiment but delegate.
If whales have too much they should sell. That's the fastest way to change the current distribution and it's in accordance to the laws of free markets.
I'm thinking that we shouldn't encourage investment in excess of 100mv, for the time being.
Later when there are more dolphins we can look at upping the limit, but as it is now the little guys are getting lost in the math.
They see the trending page and get discouraged by not being able to make even 1sbd on a post, while memes are getting 100's.
If the whales hodl, leaving their sp idle, I think the price rise will more than offset what they would get delegating, the minnows don't get run to death on the bot's treadmill, and our reputation becomes that our large holders act responsibly towards the ecosystem.
As it is now too few people hang out, and they tell their friends not to bother.
That could change if the whales would stop sucking everything to themselves and their favorites.
Why they don't want to do more to discourage the belief that the initial distribution will not be overcome is beyond me.
All they got to do is hold what they got and let the minnows flourish.
Instead they rape the reward pool as hard as they can.
Smdh.
If I have to spend my rewards on vote bots I don't get ahead, I just jog in place.
It's a viscous cycle.
The more the minnow gets in rewards the more they spend on bots, and the only one to come out ahead is the bot owners.
I always encourage the newbs to trade on the internal market and power everything up until they have 500sp, at least.
Then they can look at taking money out, if they have to have it really bad, otherwise we are early to game, and the price should go up this year, so just hodl.
Wait a second, let me get this straight. You're saying that if whales delegated their SP to relative minnows... that would attract new users to the platform, thereby increasing the value of steem for everyone.
You're also saying that right now the whales are using botnets to increase the value of their posts?