RE: Guardian of the steem universe : A different perspective on the role of whales within steem ecosystem [ part 2]

[jesta]

If my account was worth $80,000 and the limit for curation was $8,000, then I could theoretically just divide my balance across 10 accounts (each being $8000) and still have the same impact (relatively) as one account worth $80k.

That's how sybil would play out here. You can get around the new set of rules simply by creating more accounts.

Comments

[timcliff]

One thing that I missed on my first pass through was that there would be no more curation rewards. Users with a lot of SP could split into multiple accounts and gain additional influence, but there would be no financial benefit to doing that other than the ability to vote on your own (and friends) posts.

[jesta]

I totally missed that too!

[snowflake]

Here is my reply to @timcliff

Because all those small accounts will not receive any financial benefit from doing so. The inflation will only be allocated to account > $8000 and it will be higher than it currently is because it would include all current curation rewards . Also the more accounts decides to split the more inflation will be allocated to the one who don't. Basically you would increase your power by only using it to moderate.

Yes you could split your accounts but there won't be any financial incentives to do it. Overtime accounts that have chosen to split will lose power over accounts that didn't.

[jesta]

I don't think they'd necessarily lose power over accounts that didn't.

Given two situations:

• Accounts over 8k earn a proportional percentage of inflation based on account size
• Accounts under 8k earn curation rewards based on performance

It's very likely that you could create a voting algorithm that would outperform the proportional percentage of inflation. So in fact, a smart dev could probably earn more by dividing up their stake into smaller accounts and continue to play the curation game just like they do today.

I'm happy to be wrong here, but until math proves it, I've got to believe that the system that's based on performance (as opposed to flat percentage) will be more profitable.

To be completely honest, the only solution I see to the problem you present is to completely remove curation rewards. Whales would stop voting on content to just earn rewards, and would leave room for the actual members of the community to vote on what they find interesting/valuable.

[sigmajin]

unless they got kickbacks from the posts they rewarded. thats the thing, youd be giving the 80K guy (not to mention the 800K guy) a huge amount of influence if he elected to split his account into smaller accounts. he be able to assign a massive amount of the reward pool with noone to gainsay him.

[snowflake]

To be completely honest, the only solution I see to the problem you present is to completely remove curation rewards.

Man, did you read my post? :-)

[jesta]

Hahaha, apparently not good enough! It was uh... before I had my coffee :)