Essentially the 40 to 5 change increases the degree of competition between voters and therefore it should reduce whale trails. It may not be the only solution possible. We have some other ideas on the table, such as removing voting power from Stake that is powering down, as well as adding delegated voting pools and peer-to-peer vote delegation. With each proposed solution there are potential drawbacks, or the community may decide it's not what is wanted, but we are actively working to find these solutions and upgrade user experience.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Maybe just me. But personally, my user experience would be really really improved if there weren't a scheme to change who can vote and how every single week. I actually had a really big deal set up for steem that went to XMR instead after the whole hitler-post voting thing came out.
Just this one guy.
If the goal is really to decentralize whale influence, why not just do it the obvious way. Take ninja-mined vests (ie, any vests mined when mining was open but not really open) out of play for curation (after all, thats not why the ninja mine was there in the first place, it was to raise money for the platform). This would also stop PD cashouts, or at least slow them down, because whales would have to recycle their SP back into vests in order to get their curation powers back. It wouldn't effect investors.
It will definitely not reduce whaletrials because most of the whales have other accounts they can bring into play if they run out of votes, or don't cast their full 40 in the first place.
I'll just join the choir and say that as a redditor, I never stopped upvoting on comments like I used to and I think the reduction is a bad idea for all the other reasons already given, but I understand your reasons for trying and just hope the experiment will go as well as the 12h one - and be reverted in a few weeks :)
This however, is good news, may the gods smile upon you:
Yay! They will be weighted, right? Like, I can delegate 10% of my power to a user I trust, 5% to another one and use the rest for myself...?
Excuse the hijacking: have you thought about adding a text field to the database for each user which can be edited indefinitely and be (ab)used as "Profile Page" (à la MySpace) or index ("my best posts"), for example?
//edit: the slider works on steemit.com! I take everything back, leave it at 5. Perfect.
I think this already exists (kinda) in the user metadata
That's so cool! Was just saying. Now that steemshovel.com supports mutlitag search, now that steemstats.com shows me almost everything I wish to see, now that steemit.com has feeds, that was the very last desideratum from my last month's list. From now on, I'll let the devs surprise me :)
Thanks for the response how about. Adding SP to over 60 rep members from the account @steemit to increase curation and spread of good content. I see @steemit always sending SP to your pals. Why not give the community more spending power of course the amount being sent can't be powerd down ever. But gives the community as a whole to grow the site not just a handfull of big whales controlling the content. Might not sound like capitalism but the blockchain should be it's own ism "blockchainism" sounds about right.
@ned here's what I don't get.
If I understand it right, at the moment whales and others can vote 40 times at full or nearly full voting power.
Yet most new authors (like me) go completely unnoticed..
If the amount of votes that can be cast at full power drops to a measly 5, what incentive does a whale (essentially the only way to start breaking through) have, wasting 1 out of 5 precious votes on a nobody?
Interesting, I assumed that voting power would reduce accordingly as you're powering down anyway?
Cg
It does. The idea of this proposal (which I oppose) is revoke all voting power immediately when you start a powering down. So you would continue to be a stakeholder until the power down plays out over 104 weeks, but would no longer have voting rights.
@ned Powering down at half the rate and losing half voting power means doing so for twice as long to power down the same number of coins. There is effectively no difference.
Mathematically it works out to be an exit fee equal to 1 year of voting power (and associated rewards) for each coin powered down.
Do not think for a minute that the presence of such an exit fee won't deter and discourage entry, because it will, in addition to having extremely negative PR consequences. This is a terrible idea.
One can power down a portion of their stake, such as 50%, which means voting power loss only corresponding with that % stake, and they can stop a power down at anytime to regain voting rights on that portion of stake.
Hello @ned well this " removing voting power from Stake that is powering down " i would totally agree with. I have been here since almost one month !! i hold all of my investment in Steem Power. I do this primarily i believe that someone who commits to the concept of Steemit at 100 percent and is here to give full support to the site would do this. When people power down its like saying im ready to step outside and get some air, which is their choice, but those of us who are here for the long run, who have invested large amounts of money to have steem power which gives them natural curation advantages that it brings are deserved by this new method of voting. It will just further intensify the swarming to the trending posts which lets face it are easy to spot, even when you are not a bot !!
for instance i just wanted to upvote your comment which i am happy to read. I did it at ten percent and .......well nothing !! So what do i do now remove my vote and repeat with increased percentage?? seems complicated no ? Does not feel right to me this !! But i did upvote you, but seemingly no reward !! ( sorry !
I'm quite confident that if the outcome of this new feature will not serve the steemit purpose (reducing the influence of bots, rewarding the long tail of content), you'll keep tweaking it, as you have done so far and as any entrepreneurs do.
Here is my little proposition though: Discrete target vote distribution. As the voting power of minions has much less impact than the one of whales, as the majority of users are minions and as you need to maintain the activity of the minions (who are your early adopters):
I think adapting the target vote (and/or the regeneration days) according to the steem power of each users could contribute to a good equilibrium without arming the user engagement (example of target vote distribution: 40 for minions, 30 for bigfishs, 10 for orcas, 5 for whales) It may not contribute to dimish drastically the influence of bots as your initial feature will, though