Change the voting algorithm from full linear to anything but full linear and possibly n2.
Non linear voting algorithm incentives people not to split their vote and thus concentrate the votes on the most valuable content and people. Each of us are seeking the very most valuable information, not second best.
It also changes a lot of other dynamics which I think are beneficial to everyone. I just wanted to make sure it was still on your radars. I might expend on this subject in a future post.
This change should only be seek if it benefit the whole platform obviously.
I wrote a bit more on the subject here.
The definition of super linear is that for a given function
f(x), it is super linear if for allk, there exists a anNsuch thatf(x) > kxfor allx > N. Essentially, given any linear curve, the function surpasses it at some point.Back in HF 17, we proposed a curve that did not adhere to this definition. It was superlinear, to a point, and linear after a certain amount of time (this was done smoothly, not piece-wise). There were heated discussions over certain breakpoints of linearity. At how much SP does a vote behave on a certain part of the curve? Things of that nature. Many argued towards an overwhelming linearity to the curve. To the point where linear rewards made more sense. Yet others argued for breakpoints that caused the curve to look close to
nlog(n). Even though it was better thann^2, it wasn't fair enough. The problem we run into is that no matter what super linear curve we propose, many will argue for more fairness. The limit as fairness approaches infinity is linear.This is incredibly one-sided, including as a retrospective of HF17. Some will argue for more fairness, yes (and did), but some also argue for more resistance to abuse (and did). There are valid points on both sides, but to simply take the fairness argument, extrapolate to infinity, and implement it, is to completely disregard the arguments on the other side. On what basis?
Okay, fair enough, the platform can decide that "maximum fairness" is the right goal, but there's nothing that is a given about it, as some sort of mathematical extrapolation of agreed principles.
I agree things have changed. I was in favor of trying a linear curve reward. I tend to think any super linear would be better, up to a certain point obviously.
This is so for other people too who have been supporting trying the linear curve but now have changed their mind. I know @pfunk mentioned this in comment a couple days ago.
I've stated my perspective and reasoning pretty clearly in this comment.
I know that without the support of Steemit Inc such a change have a very low chance of happening if any at all. Making my reasoning to be known is the best I can do.
https://steemit.com/roadmap2018/@steemitblog/steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested#@teamsteem/re-ned-re-teamsteem-re-steemitblog-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested-20171117t011341724z
So we sacrifice a coherent overall system and the actual social aspects of “social media” because some people complain about “unfairness?”
I hate to be the bearer of bad news then, but people who don’t earn as much as they’d like will always complain about “unfairness.” Since this platform has the money element included, those complaints are inescapable. The idea is to make the system actually work and work for the most people by a coherent set of rules/protocols, not to cater to those with absurd/mismanaged expectations and misguided “feelings.”
The largest problem with any of the previous rules was the result of the initial distribution - and I have yet to see anyone willing to address that. If this place was flawed from the beginning, as Ned suggested in another comment (below), then why pretend that any amount of code tinkering can make things “more fair?” All that happens is that a different set of problems emerge...but the origin has always been the same.
Overtime many of the root problems caused by initial over-engineering and other evils/flaws I won’t go into detail about have been mitigated, cleansed or eliminated - this place is a lot better than it was before our 19 hardforks but still it’s not perfect! It never will be and I love that. Though we will get to see lots and lots of imperfect solutions balance themselves out for the most possibly perfect combined solution through SMTs
I largely agree with @ned's points here, including that while it isn't perfect it is indeed a lot better. There's still some early over- (and especially overly-eager) engineering like the 30-minute reverse auction and lousy reputation system.
I really appreciate those precisions.
I just shared some further thoughts on the subject as a reply to Ned's comment.
I support the re-institution of a superlinear reward and I agree N2 might be unnecessarily too much with negative effects outweighing the positive ones.
I understand that it would take a majority vote by top witnesses and that it has been voted on in the past and that the sentiment might not have changed enough for this changed to be vote in at this point.
My comment was more about showing my support toward such a change.
By the way, I really enjoyed watching your presentation at SteemFest and I really enjoyed watching all the other Steeemit devs too. I already knew you guys were all very passionate about Steem and definitely hardworking but those presentation and the panel discussion and the thing I've read here and there about the team made it all the more succinct.
N2 yields a deep feeling of unfairness as well as the potential for exacerbated "problems" related to delegations and vote buying. Further on that point, N2 would, unless it kills the platform, benefit people like yourself who are frequently subject to votes that would receive greatly disproportionate rewards under N2. I'd love to hear the arguments you may have against N2 to understand there's a complete picture being presented in making the case.
Personally, like the terribly evil hyperinflation, awfully implemented trickle up rewards and other crap engineering from the onset of Steem, I hope we never see N2 again.
Is it a feeling of unfairness or is it unfair?
You haven't stated the problems explicitely so they can't be argued for or against.
Your statement doesn't prove N2 to be superior or inferior to linear.
Quadratic rewards distribution by voting competitions is an important concept — but in reality quadratic voting is much more important in systems that incorporate individuality because quadratic voting fails to be socially valuable without this individuality and other, augmentative components. This is a much larger discussion than just for STEEM — it a a discussion of the future of tokens, for general and niche communities, for identifying interesting content on the internet.
https://steemit.com/steem/@nairadaddy/good-person-token-something-big-is-coming-from-steemit-inc
I think so too. Thank you for sharing this post. It's very interesting.
If you only consider the line you quoted, then you’d be missing the critical context. Quadratic as it was in STEEM has no social value relative to linear. It will have social value with other augmentative components, such as individuality.
I understood that is wasn't the whole thing and that I don't know the solution you guys might have come up with.
Thank you @ned for the information
I want to make it clear to everyone that I have everything to lose from people seeing Steem as unfair or Steem being unfair because that would obviously undermine Steem and all of our investments.
I'm definitely in favor of a none linear reward as you seemed opened to but I entertain some level of doubt about N2.
One of my biggest argument against N2 or other none linear reward curve would be just this, maybe it's making Steem unfair.
My second biggest argument against N2 or other none linear would be that it will be perceived as unfair. This is a sure thing for a portion of Steemians and I can easily understand.
The decision to implement such a change can only be taken by the majority stakeholders and this would be large investors for the most part or those who this rule seems to favor.
If this change favors some, then it is unfair which would result in a collapsing market and the biggest losers being the biggest investors which is obviously not something anyone wants. (I tend to think it favors the platform as a whole.)
None linear rewards favor people not to split their stake and not to split their votes. (In most cases) It also create a strong incentive for people not to sell their Steem.
All of this incentivize people to empower one another more directly with votes, creating meaningful relations overtime as opposed to the current situation where people are incentivized to lease their SP as much as possible.
I support the re-institution of a superlinear reward and I agree N2 might be unnecessarily too much with negative effect outweighing the positive one.
Dan has shared very valuable insights on the subject in his post "Evil Whales", more precisely under the title "The value of Consensus" and "Curation Reward".
So this is all based off some incorrect blog posts. Got it.
First of all, I want to say I'm grateful that you took the time to reply that first and second time.
In my reply I stated my case with facts. The fundamentals of what I stated doesn't come from the post I mentioned but from what I consider facts and logic.
I'm open to being proven wrong.
In your previous comment you didn't specifically mentioned that you were against all super linear reward curve simply that you hope N2 not to be reinstated.
I don't know if you are against all super linear reward curve.
At this point, I tend to think any super linear reward curve would be better than the linear one we have and that N2 might be too much.
N^2 in STEEM is evil. Any vision of only subsets of evil inside of it, like evil whales, is a selfish, narcissistic projection.
STEEM is not linear today given the minimum payout threshold of $.02.
Superlinear less than N^2 - if it could be designed you’d see it in the SMT Whitepaper. Maybe one day you will.
Good luck
Fuck you and your “evil whales” bullshit. Your delegation has been abused almost as much as @freedom at this point.
The current system of content creators getting locked into steem power while whales dump their liquid rewards from selling upvotes and leasing delegations with no need to power down is EVIL @ned. It's a SCAM.
The 0.02 minimum threshold could be improved with essentially the identical degree of non-linearity if it were a deduction rather than a threshold (i.e. votes that add up to 0.03 pay out 0.01, not 0.03). While a small change, this would tend to discourage spam and dust voting which cause harms of their own, apart from the fairness of the reward curve.
I think we need a new development team.
I’ve created a word cloud for the comments section of this post that I hope you will find of value and will want to share. While the creation of the actual word cloud is relatively easy and straightforward, the creation of a relevant word list that will produce a meaningful word cloud is quite another matter, as I’m sure you know, and takes considerable time and effort. Unfortunately, as of now, the post has only had 41 views. It needs a little love. Perhaps a resteem might be of help, if you think it is worthwhile, and, of course, it would be much appreciated too. TIA
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptographic/word-cloud-for-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input