The main reason whales are upvoting is curation rewards. If we remove them entirely and implement your idea I think many whales will abstain from voting which will give more power to the minnow. I think your idea is a very good balance, basically even minnows who want more power could just stop upvoting and they would receive more share than other. The problem is that curation rewards offer an incentives to still upvote, if you want your idea to work better you need to remove them entirely so that people have 0 incentives to upvote ( like my proposal did) Seriously talk to the devs about this, and tell them to remove curation rewards. Idk know if you read my post entirely but i explained why curation rewards are bad and serve no good purpose at all.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
check out how much most whales make in curation rewards and you might change you mind about this position.
I don't think he is incorrect. A large portion of the whale voting power that is actually deployed (largely through guilds and bots) does generate large curation rewards, even if not all individual whales do.
Well my thoughts on this heads in the direction of what is best for everybody. In my experience without being whale status is this: I vote without even thinking of what is in it for me but instead vote because I know the content contains love, integrity, and understanding. I use Steemit because I love the knowledge base it shares while allowing "me to be me."
Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, etc... are all designs of a social experience where no truth can dwell and no though can shine through because all lies seperate in the end... Meaning,
Yes I meant in this proposal to remove curation rewards. Although I have mixed feelings about that, as I do feel that curation rewards (in some form, maybe not the current one) serve a useful purpose. But I do agree the system could work without them.
Have you ever discussed this proposal with the devs or did you just come up with the idea?
Also curious to know how curation rewards would serve a useful prupose?
Some similar ideas have been discussed in the context of having "investors class" of SP/VESTS that would incentivize opting out of curation (also something @arhag has discussed/proposed). This particular variant I just came up with.
I don't really have time to get into the question of curation rewards, but some aspects of it are pretty obvious: motivation to buy SP (though as you say, only in large quantities), for those who are good curators, incentive for stakeholders to actively vote and not succumb to voter apathy, etc.
Another thing also is that the influence of minnow will fluctuate a lot more than in what I proposed. I still think the idea has merit though.@smooth There is one thing though that your idea doesn't address is that when the steem price increases it makes it more difficult for users to gain influence and so the the incentives to buy steem power will go down over time.
it doesn't. At least, not really.
for example, lets say there's 1 trillion vests in the whole system. Steem costs $1. I buy a .001% share for $10, 000.
Now lets say steem doubles in price to $2. You're correct that now, my $10K only buys me a half sized (.0005%) share.
But -- its buying me that share in a double sized system. A system that offers twice the rewards.
FOr example if my $10,000 .001% share of steem buys me a vote worth 10 cents when steem is worth $1, my $10000, .0005% share buys me a vote also worth 10 cents when steem is worth $2.
DOes the guy who bought his $10k worth of steem first, when the price was lower, have an advantage over the other guy who bought it when the price was higher? sure. So for example, if you buy $10K at $1, then i buy it at $2, youre going to have twice (actually 4 times because of quadratic weighting) as much influence as I am. But thats the way its supposed to work
Not 4 times. That only applies to the extent you are the only one voting on the post. If A has 1, B has 2, and C has 3, then A+C yields a reward of 16, but B+C yields a reward of not 64 but 25.
Overall your point that buying influence doesn't suffer much as the price goes up (but does a little, and that's okay) is a good one
You are right about the fluctuation at least. Switching this on or off on say a 24 hour basis might be too much, and the "investor VESTS" idea might be a better way to go. In that case the obvious approach would have it taking 13 weeks to swtich between classes of VESTS, so there wouldn't be wild fluctuations but more likely some sort of loose equilibrium (as there is currently with SP vs. STEEM)
well, maybe author rewards are also evil then ? )
Since people would keep voting for posts even wuthout curation rewards, I think the same would apply to authors too, they will keep posting even without rewards )
Curation rewards create a lot of bad incentives ( mainly they encourage bot/fake voting), author rewards don't.
That could be disputed. For example, authors with a following milking it but posting crap because they know their followers often upvote regardless of quality or have low standards.