The bid bot was a whale, which is why the votes were worth more under n^2.
The n^2 system is significantly better than linear when there is a reasonable distribution of tokens, and a large number of upvotes is an indication of popularity from multiple users. If we didn’t have the distribution we have - I would be right along side you fighting for n^2. In fact, we would have never switched away from it in the first place. When you have single users that have more weight than thousands of other users combined though - squaring their massive influence does not work. The n^2 curve gives a significant and unreasonable advantage to the largest stakeholders, and drowns out the small amount of influence that the lesser stakeholders have. It does not work with the distribution we have with STEEM, unless the top stakeholders opt-out of voting.
The root problem is really distribution - significantly more than any rewards curve we choose. Given the distribution we have, linear (even with the issues that come with it) is the lesser of two evils.
P.S. SMTs are going to support linear or n^2 rewards curves - so some of the new token economies will be able to get it right.
Glad to know that!
I hope we can get to some understanding.
Giving away free Steem is devaluating the whole platform.
How is giving away free Steem better than letting stakeholders sell their Steem to market price?
There are people ready to buy those Steem, how does giving them away make them anything else than less valuable?
I didn't make that quote, and I don't really think it is important. If you take that quote away, the math behind linear vs n^2 still remains the same.
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.