Curation rewards aren't linear now. They are only linear relative to stake. They are not linear in time: early voters gain versus later voters. This one point alone destroys this entire argument that rewards must be superlinear relative to stake voted.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank you for your input @blocktrades. Could you please explain how it makes the original whitepaper's argument invalid?
The existing non-linearity already gives an incentive to curators to vote on posts that other people will also likely vote on rather than simply self-voting.
The reason this doesn't work well in practice is at least in part to the fact that most of the rewards go to the author rather than the curators under the current rules.
The other problem is few people understand the real rules which are essentially undocumented and end up fighting shadows.
I'm open to any solutions that resolve the current situation. I'm interested to hear more on this type of solution involving the current % allocated to curators.
Pay more for curators than authors and people will vote for others instead.
Pointing to the whitepaper and appealing to Steemit, I feel like I'm listening to a BCASHer.
I hold the same arguments as the whitepaper and I've stated in my words why so. I'm not appealing to Steemit. I've incorporated the facts and statements mention in this post because I felt they were valuable to the subject.
Alright, to answer your above question to blocktrade, it doesn't make the whitpaper invalid. It just make your title lose meaning. It's not actually linear and never has been.
Fair point but it doesn't invalidate my overall argument.
Isn't your overall argument that you're against linear reward?
Linear in reward to how rshares allocated to author rewards are calculated.
Name calling isn't helpful
Is there a way to change the algorithm at this level to better encourage curation or is it only possible through the percentage ratio?
It may help to improve the algorithm at this level, but not if percentages aren't changed, because at 25% shared between all curators and 75% going to the author, the curators are mostly fighting for table scraps.
I would be happy to trial the 50/50 as you know, especially after playing a little on Smoke.io and watching large accounts post much less and spread more. I still believe at this stage of the platform's life cycle, experimentation will reap much larger future gains than the possible short-term losses through errors made.
If there is a decent framework set up that allows for short trials (a couple months) with systematic monitoring and adjustment proposals (revert if absolutely necessary), then the possibility to develop robust solutions is increased. It seems that everyone is looking for a solution to commit to that fixes it all, and there is far too much complexity and unknown to likely find that solution at this point.
Yes, I don't expect everything to magically work on the first try. But I think we can see some decent improvement even in the short term.
The curators are not fighting for scraps, 25% is a pretty decent amount to get. Sure if we would compare it to just self vote it may seem like scraps. But what is a person getting when they curate? They get the leverage of potential to build up Trust and Relationships with a specific person.
By showing you share some of your influence to someone else instead of self voting. The Tokens are never the real leverage. Relationships and Network potential that is the real value. This all comes down to build up Trust with other humans. It's not really about the Tokens. The Tokens works just as blood or electricity.
Even if we give 100% to curators, the best ROI remains exclusives self-upvotes.
You are wrong. Investing in human Trust and Relationships gives the best ROI. A person doing self-upvotes is never going to get the same Leverage and Return as the person investing into other humans. You can scale stuff when you invest in other humans. As you get access to more energy. You can not scale it by investing all into yourself. Coca-Cola spends 3 billion dollars per year in advertising. That is leverage. Same as best ROI leverage always will be invest in people with potential for growth.
This could change through oracles though?
Possibly.
What? That makes no sense at all to me. Maybe you could explain further.
You're right. My statement doesn't necessarily apply 100% of the time.
I can't figure out when it would ever apply, at first thought. In a 100% curation system, the author gets nothing. So you could vote on any content you wanted and you would get the same reward, completely independent of whether it was your content or someone else's.
In such a system, there wouldn't even be additional direct rewards to be gained by making people think your content was "good" by upvoting it yourself, since if they did then vote for it, you wouldn't get any reward from their vote.
About the only think I could come up with is some indirect benefit of increased fame, but it's questionable how much "positive fame" you would get unless your content was actually good.
You're right it wouldn't make any difference for who people vote so my statement was only partially correct. 100% to curation is an extreme that doesn't make any sense. It was part of what I was pointing at. Again, I appreciate your opinion and I wish more top witnesses would have joined.
It's definitely an extreme case, and not one to explore right now, IMO, but it has been proposed before as an alternative to the current system and it "could" make sense.
In such a system, the blockchain pays rewards to good curators (i.e. investors) and authors only benefit indirectly (via recognition, advertising, etc).
It's not as crazy as it might sound at first: plenty of people write all the time now without expecting direct monetary rewards from what they write.
All that aside, I'm definitely not in favor of trying something like that on Steem.
Actually not, at that point it doesn't matter what you vote on, you get the same rewards. It comes down to pay-to-vote.
Correct, the highest voting return is to sell your vote because you get the curation value of the vote + money on top of it. Self voting isn't as good, which is why some of the most flagrant self voters moved over to bidbots and got a better return there.
I don't think changing curation rules or amounts will change much. The only real option is community led downvotes of socially and arbitrarily deemed undesirable content.
Changing the curation/author mix reduces the heavy lifting that downvotes have to do. It takes less downvoting to push self-voting or vote-selling down to 50% than to 25%. There could also likely be more collateral damage with the latter. That said, downvotes alone without changing the split may still work. The question comes down to: 1) degree of relying on altruism since they are still not incentivized, 2) effect of remaining downvote discouragements such as retaliation or social reputation, 3) if the free downvote power is smaller than the upvote power there may not be enough to perform more heavy lifting.
Still, it could work.
Best of all is to sell to your vote to someone before the mega bid-bots upvote. You get paid for the vote as well as frontrun for extra curation. You also don't need to have your SP tied up in a bid-bot.
This might be the reason why I get 200 upvotes before I use the bid bots !
That could be part of the reason. Resteem services also dish out 300 worthless votes for 1 or 2 SBD.
I agree. I had to read @aggroed's comment to understand yours.