Excellent post @syochica!
The suggestion I made about voting manually is to only allow 20 votes - maybe less and make them more valuable - and - allow anyone with a vote worth less than say $0.05 to make five double votes and just 10 100% votes.
Minimum voting % should be 50% on posts and 25% on comments (half to author).
That is social media oriented.
If Game Theory pervades, it will become nastier and nastier.
Decentralisation will not happen without an enforced decentralisation - this will increase the price of steem instantly and make for a better platform.
There are few people who seem to understand the whales. You do realise I hope that they did not pay for their steem - they still claim a right to 'ROI' having driven the price down. $6.5 million has been put into this. Most of it lost. That is not ok. The people who did not pay have driven the investor value into the dirt. That is not ok.
So, I agree but disagree. How is it that 1% of all rewards have gone to about 95% of the people and 99% to 5% - you might not be here for the money but are you happy for the whales to profit to that extent off your posts?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank you!
Those are some interesting thoughts to try on voting. I do remember some months back when @dan was proposing changing the 40 votes a day to 5 (before losing vote power faster than it regenerates.) The community at the time really did take to that and it ended up not being implemented. The concern by many on this was that it would end up focusing votes by whales (in particular) to fewer people, hence 'centralizing' the rewards. (The slider bar was available at the time, but still viewed as a problem.) I believe the idea behind this was to get more people to use all the voting rshares they had allotted to them and this would have made it easier for a more casual (typically smaller SP) user to use their full 'vote shares.' While I'm open to discussion on all this myself, I have seen community pushback in the past when trying to reduce votes, but who knows, maybe that sentiment has changed.
The double voting is an interesting idea, even though I'm not totally sure the effect it would have for many users depending on their SP. I would foresee something like this using an rshare check versus the 5 cent level just to reduce complexity, since the actual dollar value changes a lot depending on how many other people have already voted on the post and the payout it's already received (I typically give zero to a post with zero payout, but can give over a nickel to things around twenty bucks,) changes are more votes go out (since it's all proportional to the total reward pool and total votes cast) as well as the actual share price. The rshares would just be a little easier to calculate since those would be a stable measure.
I do really like the idea of minimum or limiting options on voting percentages. While there is a benefit for whales having access to the full slider, for most of us it's really not as important (in my opinion.) I'd be onboard for users under X SP level having set vote level options like that. Obviously the number options/minimums are tweakable, personally liking 25% increments on posts and 10% increments on comments.
Personally I don't the decentralization aspect doesn't really bother me, even though I'm probably the odd one out on this. Those holding the large amounts are founders, witnesses, and/or investors who put in the time, work, and/or risk. I do think there is a desire to have more large SP holders, even by that group, but it has to come from somewhere. This takes either more time, work (meaning steemit inc employees/witeness) and or investments. I don't feel my 'risk' has compared to many of them...again, this is just my personal feeling.
To me this is more an impact on voting, where there are limited number of large accounts proportional to the total amount of voting shares. In the past there were calls for whales to stop voting, which would allow the dolphin votes to have the major impact on rewards as well as minnows have a more perceivable impact. At the time the whales were accruing a much larger amount of 'interest' on their help SP allowing the debate to even come up, however with that no longer being the case, curation is the only earning method (outside of steem price going up) so it's a pretty tough argument to now say not to vote.
It's true that many to invested earlier lost a lot of their value. Some may have cashed some out when the prices were higher and others holding out for the long term view of the platforms success. However, the bigger issue to me right now is drawing in new investors and having a reason to hold SP, since I don't personally see the benefit of holding liquid steem right now. To a degree this would add to the 'wealth' centralization but again, they're taking the risks and what sustains the price of steem. (at least in my mind.)
I've paid in nothing, yet earned, on top of finding something I enjoy doing. Personally I still find this to be a win/win and currently don't feel a problem on whale profits. I do expect many to disagree with me on this and I'm not trying to just be a cheerleader...I just feel I've been getting what I want out of things. Ideally every can find where they are getting what they want out of things too.