Thanks so much for writing this up!
The idea was posted before, unfortunately I am not able to find the original post or poster any more. (edit: @meno helped to dig it out! click!)
After more than two and a half years of watching maximizers getting more and more common on this platform, I immediately agreed with the guy bringing this idea to the table. There are a lot of people who'll always go the easiest way to maximize their ROI, and when they screw the original intent of the platform up like it is happening now it's just logical that even the strongest idealist will give in at some point.
We talk a lot about voluntarism, but don't take into account that money makes us do things we wouldn't necessarily do if it wouldn't play a role. Let's stop forcing people to play a game they don't care about and just want their gains. And let's hand over the playing field to those who really want to use the platform as it was intended.
I tried to promote the idea a bit below some posts and in the dev slack, but was generally ignored. Glad we came to talk about it at steemfest and it has some traction in the community now!
I think @tcpolymath wrote about this once... I thought it was great, but got very little traction as far as I know...
how difficult would this be to code into the blockchain? realistically... ?
Here's the original post.
There's some interesting discussion of implementation there that I haven't gone digging father into. But my feeling is that if we can't fit a half-size Steem and half a basic POS system into the space currently occupied by a full Steem then something really weird is going on.
Thanks for sharing your in depth view on the steem structure in your article!
So basically what you are saying is that we need to remove the rshares and replace them with STEEM? If so why don't we have the problem of self-voting in this system? Probably I missed the connection - looking forward to your response!
No we keep rshares and all of that, but we just make the whole posting-voting-rewards system something people can opt into if they want to participate, rather than something everyone has to be a part of if they want to hold Steem.
Basically self-voting and bidbots are mechanisms to get around the fact that the system forces people to vote in order to get their rewards. So if we stop doing that, they won't need that particular method.
to paraphrase (or add):
interest (earn) without bothering to even look at "content" at all - what to speak of actually reading it, evaluating, deciding how good it is (what normally curation means).
so, yes - system "forces to vote" - but doesn't forces to read :)
or in fact even bother to click on the link of "content" to even as much as open it. just "vote" action (= press upvote button) is good enough for system.
Yes! Thank you @meno, you're the greatest.
Here's the link to the post: https://steemit.com/steem/@tcpolymath/a-simple-radical-change-to-steem-that-could-fix-most-of-our-problems
I'm not a coder... but Savings is already there in the wallet and already gets 9% or 10% or whatever... so I'd guess that most of the code to make this happen is pretty much already written.
Well, I don't code anymore, but I can somewhat think of the logic...
Technically, the rshares would remain the same for the reward pool assignment, that part would not change.
Since vested STEEM already makes ROI (not much mind you) it would be simply adjusting that number, setting conditions to it (ie stake not being delegated out) and creating an equivalent of a switch condition with cool downs and what not.
I used to code, its been a couple of decades now.. but it doesn't seem too hard, at least by comparison.
9 or 10%? interest?? savings dont be makin no money no more mon! Wachu talkin bout mon dis steem wallet be broken mon andf i tink its only a few percentage points aye and not anymore
Has anyone flagged this comment?
This is what I am hoping for if this can get pushed through for a trial.
I think it is hard to get status quo changed and it seems that many are waiting for something to save them. As I just mentioned, this prepares for turning off the Steem tap and makes a nice smooth transition for the Dapps to implement SMTs.
Let's see what others say. Thank you for all of the various forms of support you have provided the platform over the years, and thank you from me too.
Just as @pharesim said, I instantly loved the idea when i was reading through the article. I though hear such a proposal for the very first time and I’ll need to take my time and think about all the implications it would have.
First thing that caught my eye is that it doesn’t seem right to give an option to instantly switch between the locked Steem and SP. People could then just farm 5-7x 100% votes per day, switch to SP influence the platform (and gain curation reward?) and switch back - repeat. Maybe I misunderstood something but it feels like big investors could maintain the option to influence the platform a lot while still farming those "self-votes" EVERY DAY. Thus the lesser users wouldn’t really have bigger say. I think it would be healthy to truly distinguish between "locked Steem and "SP" by implementing similar rule that exists when delegating SP or converting Steem - in other words it would be healthy to have like a week long period when the locked Steem is converting to SP or Steem. Or maybe use the power down rule? So one could "power up" either to "Locked Steem" or "SP" instantly, but it would take long time to power down, but the user would be receiving portion of it every single week (then again the user could power down either into Steem, or into the other "locked version of Steem".
Those are my very initial thoughts about the matter so it probably isn’t anything extraordinary:D. Anyway great food for thought as always bud. Resteemed:)
Yep, the details themselves would have to be discussed and thought through at a much deeper level that I am able to do but I tihnk there would be a way to make it much less gameable than the current system is and increase stake influence of smaller users. I am glad people are talking and thinking about it.
Wow, a 20k SP flag for managing to bring up a discussion, and you don't even give your opinion. I thought better of you @transisto
Due to the lack of reasoning I assume you're afraid of your stupid middleman service becoming useless if this happens. Interesting choice of priorities.