Very important. As I'm sure you're aware this was one of the reasons for squared vote curves.
From the whitepaper, this is known as the Prisoners Dilemma:
The naive voting process creates a Prisoner’s Dilemma whereby each individual voter has incentive to vote for themselves at the expense of the larger community goal. If every voter defects by voting for themselves then no currency will end up distributed and the currency as a whole will fail to gain network effect. On the other hand, if only one voter defects then that voter would win undeserved profits while having minimal effect on the overall value of the currency.
In order to realign incentives and discourage individuals from simply voting for themselves, money must be distributed in a nonlinear manner. For example a quadratic function in votes, i.e., someone with twice the votes of someone else should receive four times the payout and someone with three times the votes should receive nine times the payout. In other words, the reward is proportional to votes^2 rather than votes. This mirrors the value of network effect which grows with n^2 the number of participants, according to Metcalfe’s Law.
Assuming all users have equal stake, someone who only receives their own vote will receive much less than someone who receives votes from 100 different users. This encourages users to cooperate to vote for the same things to maximize the payout. This system also creates financial incentive to collude where everyone votes on one thing and then divides the reward equally among themselves.
Wish more people actually bothered to read the whitepaper.
I did but they don't update changes. So if you read the white paper you still might think inflation is 100% a year...
Did you know I made the initial steps to update the whitepaper by meticulously translating it to LaTeX format? I made a pull request on the 24th of March. We're getting on to be 3 months from that now.
I really wish @sneak would accept it, or do some alternate solution, so we could get to updating it. The paragraphs I have just quoted are another thing to add to the out of date stuff.
@neoxian @lennstar this may interest you. What can we do to push this on finally?
I did not, that is interesting. Annoying reading out of date information...
Actually there's some movement on this now 😁
Just keep bugging him I guess.
Fair enough, but most of the other stuff still applies..well one less thing now.
completely agree. I wrote a post on how blown away I was by it all here: https://www.bitcoin-millionaire.com/steem-cryptocurrency-bought-1-bitcoin-worth/
Your upvotes has also significantly grown... Hm... it's a bit ridiculous. Don't think that comments deserve to generate so much money. It's stimulating indeed but it can open a hunt on whales. Why generate content if you can just comment?)
It's ridiculous but my made "just for fun" alterego made a good profit from dirty humor comments. Much more than new content did.
To be fair, I've had some great conversations in the some comment sections here. Many times they've been much more informative and entertaining than the post itself. I'd rather keep the incentive to comment alive.
Btw I didn't actually answer your question. I'd be upvoting my posts by default as it is the steemit.com interface default for a while. I also manually upvoted my comments when I wanted to raise the visiblity.
It certainly has a different taste now though :/
Too bad that only works as long as you aren't a whale and not using bots ;)
Lol, good point. Things always come up as experiments continue. I'm glad in this case that something popular was listened to.
Now, let's hope it works out! 🤞
Don't forget, as difficult as the sell would be, we can always roll back 😉
This is understandable in the beginning, but doesn't make sense when most of the voting power in a network of 200,000 + people gets concentrated within less than a 100 people, how can they ever hope to curate that much content ?
Anyways, LOTS of self voting (for whales) was happening before the HF too.
That's the idea! Yea I think you are right, it was something I've supported for a while.
And the self voting will reduce once the initial hype of the HF dies, right now people are literally self voting for 'fun' and to see how much their votes are worth lol. I'm confident this won't continue
I'm interested to see if that's true. It would be easy to do the stats on this in say a weeks time. Might be a good project.
I think the Prisoner Dilemma premises that humans are inherently evil and will try to abuse the system. On the other side much of Steem is actually founded on the principal of humans being positiv and social.
N² also created the unfair hit or miss environment and overall huge inequality between trending and new. I feel like n² was like shooting mocking birds with heavily artillery.