If we still had the n2 it would've diluted his power, but instead the rapists won, huh?
Instead of modifying behaviors of abusers we all had to lose some freedom?
Well, time will tell.
The truth will come out when the skills arrive that can make the reality digestable to the nontech folks.
If she cant be seen on the ui's she has been censored from the majority of users, and all not signed in visitors, huh?
I find it disingenuous of you to contend any different.
For the record i havent put much time into finding what she has done, bernie seems to know what he is doing.
N^2 vs current makes no difference in this scenario. Under both N^2 and current, you can spread your SP as much as you want accross accounts and the reputation and reward loss will be the same if you downvote with all of them as if you had it all concentrated in one account.
I may be wrong, I'm no genius, but the whole point of the n2 was to keep folks from spreading their sp into multiple accounts and selfvoting, if I remember Dan correctly.
It also served to multiply the votes of minnows when we ganged up on somebody.
Without it self voting and multiple accounts have exploded.
Delegation is what is hurting us the most, imo.
Sp that was off the voting tables is now getting voted and EVERYBODY'S vote has lost power, except the largest holders of sp, who couldn't care less and just want to make passive income from rewarding shit posters that have money to buy influence from them.
Same for the minnow gangs, when a minnow group votes all that sp everybody else's votes go down in value.
My vote was a dollar for a couple days, then it was a quarter, now it is a dime.
We will not attract quality content producers while shitposters hold down everybody else's vote by buying influence from peddlers or gang up to exclude folks that don't join their reindeer games, imo
But, I guess, long term, it is better for the price to go back to a dime so I can get more for the vests I do get voted,...so, burn, baby, burn,....maybe then we can get some 'rich' folks to listen when we say that the little guy has no reason to be here.
(edit) When 10 voters control 30% of the reward pool that 20k+ people vote from, that is an issue, to me.
A fine comment! I am proud of my good sense in following you.
Bringing anarchy to the masses one comment at a time, since 1985,....
No, N^2 was not done in order to avoid spreading of SP. The reason for a super-linear curation curve like N^2 was to encourage voting on things that other people might vote for, rather than just voting on any old thing. Under a linear curation curve, a curator would get the same reward regardless of whether other people voted on it or not (not strictly true, as the post could be downvoted and the curator would lose out, but true for most posts), whereas under a super-linear curve like N^2, a curator gets more when other people also vote on the post.
But it's worth noting that while the author reward is now linear, the curation reward is still super-linear (although not as extreme as N^2, which ended up giving most of the reward to the whale curators), so there is incentive to curate posts which other people will later upvote.
But the biggest problem with the curation reward system currently is a feature than Dan pushed on the system: a 30 minute period after a post is made during which early curators are punished for voting on the post. This redistributes most of the reward from the curator to the author if the curator votes too early. Most unsuspecting curators give up a significant portion of their curation reward because of this rule (and even if they know about the rule, do you really want to wait 20 minutes to come back and vote on a post?). And this rule also results in a lot of voters finding it more lucrative to follow a trail which is programmed to vote near the end of the 30 minute period rather than voting on their own.
Perhaps the worst consequence of this rule is that it's more beneficial to buy votes from bots than it would be otherwise, because you can get the bot to vote right away for your post and capture all the reward from the vote instead of the reward being split between the curator and author of the post. In short, the biggest economic incentive for self-voting using bots is a rule that Dan was the biggest proponent for.
Thank you for taking time to respond to my complaints.
I would still like to reverse that hardfork and alter the behavior of the misbehavers, but that is just me.
The problem still remains that 10 out of 27k+ voters give out 30% of the reward pool, and I don't see anyway to alter their giving it to authors that they approve of, it seems unlikely to get folks to support speech they disagree with, on the whole.
Optimally we would find a median and allow the bottom to have more influence while we want more bottom folks to join, and the top to have more influence when we want more investors.
This would require that some folks refrain from voting for the short term.
Currently all the incentives are doing is driving the little guys out, annoying the hodl'ers, and enriching the already rich.
Hardly a prescription towards mass adoption.
I would oppose ending the 30 minute window, otherwise folks will just stake out the new posts, at least with it there is the opportunity for folks to get ahead of the bots.
As it stands we can only wait for the reality to make it through the short term greed, long term we are better off with more users, imo.
Games have to have rules, otherwise there is no game.
When the top was getting most of the curation awards, were they also getting most of the author rewards?
If author rewards were larger before the hf, I say we go back.
As for the vote selling bots, and the gangs that gang up to reward the popular among them, put me down as waiting for the masses to catch on to the reality and their demise.
When whales vote the minnows have little reason to be here.
Before delegation got going my vote moved the dial much more.