Operation Even Flow - @hendrix22's Proposal For Steemit Equality - We Need A Fucking Hard Fork!
I wrote a post the other day complaining about the SMT's, the Steemit Witnesses, Voting issues and the Haejin pillaging. You can read that post HERE incase you missed it.
I have created a solution to some of these issues and would like to share it with you all. I am not a witness however and my solution cannot be implemented unless the people really are interested in making this platform better and not just filling their wallets up. I am also including another solution from a fellow Steemian @jga shared with me via a comment. He created a post which I will place the link to. So it's time we all stop complaining all day and start offering all these solutions and make the much needed changes to keep this platform heading in the right direction.
Image Source
What Is Operation Even Flow?
I created this solution in the hopes of solving the issues of large weight up and down votes compared to regular Steemians votes. You shouldn't be punished for having a large stake or being a large investor so I have a solution to that. I also think that you shouldn't be given a large weight vote if your investment is minimal. This solution will create more equality and help lower the circle jerking and create a more equal playing field for Steemians.
Let's Take A Look At Some Examples
Current Voting Weight Based On Steem @ $3.00
In the image above you see how the current voting system is setup. If you own a large stake of Steem Power you can cast a very large up or down vote up to 10 times per 24 hour period. This can be the main cause of severe circle jerking, pumping up spam posts, huge self upvotes as well as serious down votes which in turn is almost impossible to counter against regardless the amount of steemians who thought a post was worth up voting. In the case of the Haejin situation you can see how Ranchorelaxo upvotes Haejin 100% for 10 votes per day which is not spreading around any of the votes throughout the Steemit platform.
Operation Even Flow's Voting Weight Based On Steem @ $3.00
In the image above you will notice that I have found that if the amount of money per vote is lowered by the larger stake users and the amount of votes per 24hr window increases then they will be forced to spread the upvotes around to more of the community. This will by default make circle jerking a little bit more difficult and perhaps a bit less appealing. It will also force Haejin to either post 55-60 posts a day to receive the same amount of monetary gain from himself and Ranchorelaxo as he currently does. It will also create a more fair system on the upvote downvote war on a post since the voting amount will be closer to equal then they are in the current system.
This type of system will also cause bid bots to become less appetizing since the maximum up votes would be less. However maybe they would work better considering the amount of lower $ value votes they would be able to spread around. Perhaps the delegation feature should be removed from the system as well or maybe a cap limit installed. It seems that it is causing more harm then good but that's a topic for another day.
Why Is It Called Operation Even Flow?
I chose to name my current solution to the issues at hand Operation Even Flow because it's my life and I do what I want. No really it's because it's a fucking awesome name and Pearl Jam is kicks ass.
Image Source
A Different Solution by @jga
Now let's look a little bit at a different solution to the voting issues at hand. This solution was created by a fellow Steemian named @jga.
Steem proposal to reduce voting rings and self-voting by @jga
Image Source
The Proposal
Let's reduce the value of the vote to those votes that represent a good percentage of the curation of a user.
We can not impose that the vote to be distributed among 1000 different accounts, this would be very restrictive and unpopular. But I think that a fair number is distributing the vote among at least 20 people, meaning no more than the 5% of our voting power for each account.
Each user will have 20 "resistances" that represents the amount of voting power spend in a particular user. For instance, Alice has a voting power at 100%. If she votes Bob the voting power is reduced 2%. This 2% is added to one resistance called "Bob". When this resistance is above 5% the worth of the vote is reduced proportionally to this percentage.
And how is the percentage of each resistance reduced? The same amount added to one resistance must be subtracted from the remaining 19 resistances. In other words, the 20 resistances represents the distribution of our votes.
I know it is difficult to visualize at first glance. For this reason, I have created a very intuitive simulator where you can understand it directly.
Please click on this LINK to be taken to @jga's Proposal
@jga has created a voting simulator for his proposal so you can physically see how the voting would take place.
A 3rd Solution by @smcaterpillar
Steem Improvement Proposal: Revoting Power to counter Upvote Circles and Bid Bot Abuse by @smcaterpillar
The Proposal
For simplicity users voting are called curators and the users receiving these votes are called authors in the following.
Besides the existing voting power that decreases slowly with each vote and recovers quickly by 20% each day, a curator is assigned an individual voting power per author. Let us call this special voting power revoting power. The revoting power is halved after each vote casted by the curator on the very same author. Moreover, the re-voting power recovers much more slowly and re-doubles only every n days. For now let us assume n=28, i.e. 4 weeks, but the exact time span needs to be discussed in more detail.
Please click on this LINK to be taken to @smcaterpillar's Proposal
So instead of crying like little bitches and complaining all the time we need to work on some changes. These are 3 different methods of change for the same topic. Perhaps we could debate these changes or integrate them together to make the ultimate change to the system. Let's all work together to develop what would work the best because 100,000 brains have to be better then one :)
Once we have exact proposal written in stone we must fight for the change to be implemented into the block chain so we can grow this platform into what it's meant to be. We as the users should have the power to make the change or what's the point in Decentralization.
I look forward to working with all of you to create a place where everyone is happy and wants to get their family and friends aboard and not want to cash out and run away before the ship crashes. It should be a place where when you have extra money on a pay cheque from working overtime your first thought is I can buy a little extra Steem Power this week :)
Let's do this guys!
What a great idea, I have seen several good ideas coming out of late, and that has to me way more beneficial than people simply "complaining" so let the ideas flow I say, spot on my friend, thank you.
Honestly, that's a really solid plan. Kudos for actually trying to come up with solutions as opposed to just re-circle jerking...
Quite a lot to take in. I'm 100% with you on lowering vote power after ABC amount of steem. But my concern is maybe some whales will pull out. Of course, these big boys want money and only money. 20 accounts seems ideal not too money things to look for and keeps it simple. I get the main point but must read @smcaterpillar blogs to fully understand.
so..let them big whales pull out..more from for Dolphins to swim in.
We used to have 40 votes a day, we all still control the same amount of stake it is just that larger votes can be given. Just letting you know... In case you didn't.
I'm not in favor of changing the math. We've been there, no matter what changes are made the financial values of those with large stake always put the money back where it back where they want it. What we need is Steem in more hands which is why I am an outspoken advocate of the voting bots. They are greatest equalizer we've seen.
Thank you for the mention @hendrix22, we need some change to reduce the abusing.
Your proposal is very interesting, but my fear comes when I think in very good projects like @utopian-io, which uses a huge upvote to support software developments, I believe that this model should not disappear (and the same for similar communities).
Thanks for showing these 3 proposals.
It's great to see there are great ideas to improve the platform.
Then again, our greatest problem has not been the lack of ideas, but rather the willingness and force from those who could actually make changes.
a lot to take in and absorb and understand...I will reread...great ideas
As much as this is an issue, there's the other issue of legitimacy, regarding content. There's so much content, most of it being garbage, that it overwhelms new users. I recommended Steemit to a few people now, I haven't been on the platform very long, but none of them stayed due to plagiarism, poor writing, and the circle jerking (as you called it). For instance, your article has proper grammar, is clear and succinct with its intention, therefore legitimizing you as a contributor. The vast majority of users damage Steemit's image by failing at these. The most important aspect of crypto is to have a product...maybe not at first, but eventually users or buyers will catch up to the reality of what the product actually is, whether it's a good product or a poor one. Steemit certainly needs changes. It wouldn't be difficult for another company to emulate their product. And in accordance to your qualms with voting, this is something that has to be done in order to allow for a better market of voting. Good post.
It's wonderful to see some thoughtful proposals being put forward and seeking software solutions to the issue of reward pool rape. While the guns of war are quiet the small SP delegation of mine shall be redirected where it could be better used at the moment, @hendrix22.
My feeling is that we have to form a large voting block and discuss such issues as this one. The block should have a voting bot of their own. Once they have agreement from the block through their one for one votes, then it could be considered a part of the block's platform and witnesses could be lobbied and those supporting the block's platform could expect the block's support.
This idea was sketched out a bit in this old post of mine :
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@novacadian/exploring-alternate-ways-to-contribute-to-the-community
I, for one, cannot wait for a fairer system to be implemented.