So the distribution is bad, making Steem less valuable than it could potentially be, so the solution is to give away free Steem up until the distribution gets better? Then revert back to n^2?
How is this making Steem more valuable?
How is making Steem less valuable through devaluating its value through giving away part of its inflation more valuable?
If the stakeholders consider they own a too much Steem, should the logic be that they should sell their Steem rather than the rule being changed to undeniably give an advantage to scammers?
Are you recommending investors to solely vote themselves while we revert back to a system that is sound?
Are you recommending people like @haejin to have their own bit-bot where they will be making as much or more than if they voted themselves 100% all the time while being left alone?
Edit:
Sorry about that somewhat incendiary comment. I know we're all trying to make Steem better. The fact my comment highlighted stand. Scammers are at an advantage under the current incentives and that is at the expanse of everyone as a whole.
Giving away free STEEM is a mischaracterization. The same amount of STEEM is going to be given out regardless of which voting curve we use. Who it is given out to is the only thing that will change, and the voting curve decides who has influence over that.
If you think @haejin is a reason to switch from linear to n^2 then you are mistaken about what the difference between linear and n^2 does. @haejin with the amount of stake he has is a very wealthy whale, and his votes would actually be worth more if we switched to n^2.
No worries. Passionate debates come with the territory :)
Still doesn't address my point.
Advantaging scammers doesn't make Steem better.
If the distribution is the problem then why not let those who think so sell their Steem instead?
Sorry but this is too vague / general.
It is not up to us what the stakeholders do with their stake. Those with the most power are to a large extent choosing to hold on to it.
This would nullify Steem Power use.
If everyone does this everyone loses but the largest shakeholders lose the most. Thus those who have the least to lose or nothing at stake don't have to care. They received their SP for free, create bots that votes and comments and at some point they will end up controlling most of the SP.
Those who have the largest stake can't simply upvote themselves all the time whether it's under linear reward or superlinear reward. This would kill the demand for SP.
But under any super linear reward the largest stakeholders do have an advantage, while under linear reward because everyone is "equal" then the largest share holders lost something, they are at a disadvantage. Sorry if it wasn't clear prior.
...
Under the current system, policing is costly while self-upvote with bots is quasi free, thus Steemit Inc reffering it to free money.
You seem to have drawn a line between the large stakeholders as 'good' and the people who earned their stake as 'not caring'. Things are not this simplistic. Some of the largest stakeholders are doing things that are arguably doing major damage to the network/blockchain/token. Some of the new members who have received only 'free' (earned) stake care deeply and are doing a lot to advance the platform.
Prior to linear rewards a large portion of the upvotes were going to the friends of the whales, and the vast majority of the users were complaining about how they wern't getting noticed. It may not have been as evident/obvious as direct self-voting, but it was almost as bad.
Sorry, but they are not at a disadvantage. Yes, they have less influence than before, but disadvantage is an incorrect characterization. A user who has 10x as much stake gets 10x as much influence. That is not really an 'unfair' or disadvantaged situation.
This was not really happening though.
Self-upvoting (or circle / clique voting) is still possible with n^2. It is less profitable for minnows, and more profitable for whales.
This is a messy situation. I am not going to sit here and try to convince you that linear rewards is perfect. Both linear rewards and n^2 have some major flaws to them. Whether we go with one or the other - we are making a choice with regards to the pros and cons of the different options.
You seem very convinced that n^2 is the solution to all of our problems, but you seem to ignore all the other problems that it creates. You cannot blindly campaign for it without accepting and acknowledging what it costs. It does improve a lot of things - yes; but it makes us worse off in other ways.
I might have seemed to draw such line but I never draw such line. Someone who has 1 millions SP care to the same extent than someone who has 1 SP, they simply don't care to as many SP and whether they mine, blog or buy to get it it's still the same market price when they come to sell.
Should Steem be giving free Steem to those who don't engage in proof-of-brain?
Should Steem give the biggest advantage to those who don't engage in proof-of-brain?
Have you read "Evil Whale"?
You can say the same thing about all the 'free steem' that is being given out to whales and the people they vote for under the n^2 system.
I don't know what is being compared here, and who has an advantage over who in the context of the question.
Yes, it was written in the context of a reduction in curation rewards, and explained the theory of how good voting and curation was incentivized through the existing voting/rewards structure. There are parts of it that are flawed when trying to use the same analysis in the context of linear vs. n^2 curation rewards, and there are also some things that we have learned since the post was written (two years ago) which were the reason the new hardfork was made to change away from n^2. There are a lot of good and valid points in the post.