I hope to see some detailed posts about how the EIP will actually impact users. Most people don't understand hypothetical curves.
Take a few 'actual' accounts at certain levels of Steem Power (50SP / 500SP / 5000 SP etc) and show what they received from the pool in for example the month of May under HF20 and what they would've earned if in that same month of May HF21 was running. Both in author as in curation rewards - see who is going to be the big winners and the big losers here, and if we want/need these people to be the big winners and losers.
I know it will be way more complex than that and some behaviour will change due to HF21 so the numbers will be different, but we have to start somewhere - or have I missed posts that are already working through real-life examples/impact on users?
nah, drop it let it explode and apologize about how they didn't consider the impact later. :)
Oh shit, sorry, of course we should do that - I'm so naive.
It's all counterfactuals. It's easy enough to run the curves (and the post says they will release an API explicitly for that purpose), but the whole point of the EIP is to change up the incentives enough that some behavioral changes result. Calculating the new curves on the old behavior is only a starting place.
I'm in favor of the SPS but not the EIP. I wish they could be separated out instead of having to accept or reject the whole package.
I think the EIP makes too many assumptions about positive behavioral outcomes, without having enough checks in place for negative behavioral outcomes.
My only hope is that big whales that came out in favor of it... behave in a way that proves that the changes were good.
"Look how much better I'm behaving under EIP! I told you it would work!!" - Future Traf
And of course Steemit Inc.'s simulations have never been off by a factor of ten before.
#sbi-skip
Yes, I state that in my comment as well - I'm currently very skeptic about how big of a shift in behaviour we'll see, so in my 'uninformed' mind this 'starting place' might in the end prove to be pretty much reality for 95% of the platform anyway :') (Fake LOL, in reality I'm crying here.)
:') Oh, the joy!
I give "New Traf" a week. Look, you already have all the information you need to know if he is trustworthy, cares about content and is interested in the success of the community.
What more is there to know.
While I do hope I am wrong and these changes bring awesome changes. It is still too much for one hardfork.
Those guys...
They've had months to change their ways to offer proof and say, "SEE! This is how it could work!" All talk, no action.
@kevinwong! I'm looking at you, boy! You better be right or I'll be shoving my fist up your ass!
Ha!
On the bright side, they've extracted so much SP from this place, we're going to be loving those votes they promised, @whatsup.
Bid bot owners would be big winners, but that should self correct partially in the price of bot bids. Social interaction and new accounts would be the big loser, especially small accounts currently making small amounts of money from minnow and dolphin up-votes of their comments and posts.
The only incentive the EIP truly creates that can be easily seen when simulated is incentive for growth of the bid bot economy.
One important incentive the EIP doesn't create is the incentive for good content creators making a few bucks from add revenue sharing on other platforms, to come and switch platforms in favor of STEEM.
Most likely not, bidbots will most likely recieve a lot of downvotes now that they are free which will make their business model much less sound.
It would, I think, be much more effective and way less disruptive to the content economy to combine a 67/33 split for upvotes with a 33/67 split for downvotes using some sort of curator/aythor buckets, instead having 50/50 for both.