It would be an elimination of all curation rewards. If it was just for those accounts above 250 Mvests, then the incentive would be for all the whales to just divide their accounts into several 250 MV accounts to collect additional curation rewards.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Curation rewards is the best thing about the platform. The only unique thing. We should go 50 curation 25 comments and 25 authoring.
Still though I like the idea of capping rewards. I wonder if we could lift inflation and use that to pay whales? If you just capped it I think that's also ok. It's like a dash masternode. Whales could run many moderating master nodes. Unless they all voted together (possible with bots) it would still redistribute power.
Perhaps the other answer is to have rewards grow expentilly till 250 then go up very slowly after that.
It is a very controversial part of the proposal. There are people on both sides of the argument. IMO - curation rewards are actually doing more harm than good. (I explained my reasoning in some other comments within the thread.)
I think you are right for the whale accounts. Curation is too easy to earn without reading with a bot. but limiting to under 250k (and still earning curation) might fix the issue.
It would suffer from sybil, whales could just divide up their balance into multiple 200 MV accounts and use the bots to vote with all of them, thus earning rewards again.
@jesta to prevent sybil, can we give moderators extra power? Say, a moderator with 300MV can nullify upvotes with 3000MV. Then we may have the issue that one moderator can counteract another moderator, however that's easier to be solved as it's an issue of a smaller group.
answer to @jesta (nesting)
What if we include TIME in the equation?(!)
200MV that are 6 months old should be "stronger" than 200"fresh"MVs
If users could earn curation for accounts under 250 MV, then the incentive for the whales would be to just split their large accounts into lots of 250 MV ones.
Can you elaborate on why they are the best thing, is it the money aspect or something else?
It's the most unique to pay people to sort through bad content and find good content and order it from best to worst.
First it's the easiest way to earn crypto currency. There is no other way for a common person to give a scarce resource ( his attention) and get crypto.( I would put crowd funding, not blogging as #2).
2nd it's a game. Finding and voting for something first is fun. The curation rewards are your score.
Third It's a business. It's almost like investing in a post except you are an activist and can drive traffic, resteem, or promote your investment.
Now other sites pay writers. Or maybe they facilitate payments through advertising. There are lots of ways to pay but it's not much different than a site that advertises and pays its users in bitcoin. This has been done lots of times and the sites paying the most will win and the ones with the most revenue will pay the most. A startup might win if it dominates a niche but most will fail.
For curation benefits there are no competitors. Maybe Reddit which uses moderators and votes but they aren't paying them and all votes are equal. The curation plus power function makes this unique. ( though I would say should be less than 2)
don't cut curation!
Upvoting good content is a natural behavior, users will do it regardless of the incentive. The fact that users assign real money to content and that they have a limited amount of it guarantees that only the best content will be upvoted.
The easiest way is to post content, most newbies have no clue about curation rewards and how it works.
The game is rigged by bots. I also use a bot and one week i decided to do a little experiment by manually voting instead, my curation score dropped a lot. The very large majority of curators are just subscribed to bots.
Also curators are encouraged to vote fast, this creates a situation where everyone upvote without reading any content, even manual curators they have no choice but upvote blindly.
More like lobbying
What better way to do that than increasing demand for steem..
Which sites?
OK. Then it's a no-go for me. See my response to biophil.
I agree with @ats-david. Getting rid of curation rewards is a bad idea. It will kill off a large incentive to power up. But perhaps we can settle on a middle point for your idea. Rather than all the curation rewards going to interest payments for investors, maybe a percentage of curation rewards can be allocated to investors instead. I.e. Whales above 250MV would be paid interest proportional to their vests, and that has the benefit of them not having to actively curate but still receiving interest on their investment. This figure should be similar to what they would have received if they curated. Whereas curation rewards would still be paid to those with holdings below 250MV.
In this scenario, curation rewards would still be distributed similar to what it is now, but dolphins and minnows would have greater voting power, and would be incentivised to powerup more.
I could be on board with this as well. There's no reason the diverted curation rewards would have to goto accounts with >250MV, they could go to everyone.
I still want to see curation rewards removed though - or at very least replaced with a better system.
Right now, the curation rewards are only paid to the accounts that are actively curating. If the curation rewards for accounts above 250 MV were split among everyone with that much SP (without needing to curate), they would be a lot lower than someone could get for actively curating. There would still be an incentive for a whale to split their voting power into smaller accounts and actively vote.
Maybe the active curation should be twice or 50 percent more then the passive investors.
All the whales don't use all voting power do they? They leave some on the table. Those leaving money on table now would likely like the passive option.
Most whales use bot to curate so I'm not sure if this is really a benefit.. In my case I would probably split my accounts into 2 and chose curation rewards over this because I would earn more with an efficient bot than curation rewards given as inflation.
Perfect!
Only if the additional interest isn't high enough. When you break up your account you give up your share of the >250 MV payments.
Agreed. I don't know how the math works out as far as at what point the investor interest would outweigh any incentive of influence + curation from having multiple 250 MV accounts.
As discussed elsewhere though, I feel that eliminating curation rewards entirely as part of the proposal has merits for other reasons too.
If eliminating curation rewards is being done for other reasons then it should be a separate proposal. It is certainly not necessary for the concept of buying out a large portion of the voting power.
[nesting]
@snowflake
There is one reward pool from dilution and the allocations in it are more or less arbitrary and have been changed multiple times. If there is a good reason to buy out voting power then a portion of that rewards pool can be allocated for that purpose. It doesn't have to be specifically the curation rewards.
And curation rewards, frankly, have been cut so much that even if they were redirected I'm not sure that would be sufficient incentive to serve as an effective buyout. But again there is no reason to fixate on one particular slice of the pool.
@jesta is actually proposing that in a separate reply to the post. I am not opposed to the idea of just eliminating curation rewards.
As far as buying out the voting power, I could be wrong but I don't think that we could provide a large enough incentive without the extra money from the elimination of curation rewards.
If curation rewards are not eliminated how are moderators going to be rewarded?
@snowflake
Why do moderators need to be rewarded? Downvoting bad content is a natural behavior, users will do it regardless of the incentive. Right?
[more nesting]
@snowflake
Curators will also be rewarded most likely in the new community system, where they could receive a portion of the author's posting rewards for that post existing in their community.
@ats-david
The idea is to "buy out" the largest stakeholders from voting at all (or at least, doing so, with the bulk of their SP) except downvoting (i.e. making whales moderators) so the influence of smaller stakeholders grows (under some sets of assumptions it could grow by a very large amount)
Here's an idea: what if you paid people for unspent voting power? Right now, when an account's voting power is at 100%, they have this trickle of voting power that's just going to waste. If you paid them for it (the network "buying back" the potential curation rewards they could be earning), each person would be able to choose whether they wanted to earn curation or just sit there and let their balance grow.
I haven't thought through it at all, but it's a quick-and-dirty way to let whales individually opt-in to something like your 250Mvest proposal. AND, because of the sub-linearity of curation rewards, large accounts would see a bigger bang for their buck by not voting than smaller accounts.
@smooth actually brought up this exact idea in @snowflake's post. It is a good idea and I'm not opposed.
Two arguments against it are:
Yeah, that's a fair point. Even if the rewards for curation would easily be higher than the rewards for sitting, it would easily feel like an incentive not to vote.
That's true.
If the rewards for curation are higher everyone would curate.
Good points. The problem I see with this proposal too is that minnows's influence wouldn't be stable. If their influence goes up and down all the time they would be confused and might not buy as much steem power as they would otherwise.
That will be true regardless though. The amount that an individuals vote is worth is always dependent on the amount and way the rest of the active voting stake is being used.
For SP holders author rewards is actually some sort of taxation. Curation rewards is like tax didaction, so at the end active curator pays less taxes
I doubt that removing of tax deduction would be of any help for the economic growth
The money from curation would be directed into passive interest that would go to all SP holders.
Which would make about 1.7% p.a.
It would be best to continue the conversation here: https://steemit.com/curation/@timcliff/elimination-of-curation-rewards