Shouldn't we be increasing the number of votes per day?
40 was a little much, but twenty would bust up some of the circle jerks.
Fewer votes only increases the take of the few, imo.
I get that the view from a large stake holders perspective says more votes is more work, and it is hard enough to find votable content now, but aren't we trying to spread the coin to more hands and not fewer?
Well you can do lots of small votes if you want.
I think a good compromise would be not forcing people to come to vote every single day, just let the voting power go to 200-300% or remove the penalty where the lower your voting power the less powerful your votes and let people vote with up to 300-400% I wouldn't mind checking what has been produced on a weekly basis kinda like I am checking my medium feed. Having to come every day and find 10 vote-worthy pieces just feels like a chore
If we didn't have the pressure to vote so much and so often I think it would encourage human curation greatly.
If you allow people to vote with more than 100% then you can have the best of both worlds where whales can vote much less and small stake holders can vote as much as they want.
Ok, let's decrease the powerdown time, too.
No point in slowing down the converting of those no effort rewards to btc, huh bruh?
This is a game, if you don't have time to play the game effectively, so sad.
If the game is going to be 'Watch the whales suck value out that I paid for because I suck so hard I can't afford more stake so I can downvote their rewards they self voted themselves and their minions, I should get a better job.', I don't think this endeavor is on a successful path.
The only people playing with those rules in mind are already here.
The reputation of this being true is already set in the market place.*
People are buying other coins because their model is not this one.
*Hive dropped out of the top 100 coins.
As central as you are to the creation of the coin, howo, you should be looking for ways to make extraction harder, not easier, imo.
Easier lowers the value of the work.
Derp!
I'm of the opinion that anybody voting over 500mv on any given day is cancerous to the ecosystem.
Especially, if that goes to the same ~5 accounts day after day.
You folks have had 4 years to finally listen to what the users are saying to you, but you seem intent on only hearing from the choir that you have financed.
Very Ned of y'uns, iyam.
What I'm trying to solve is not really to make it easier or harder to play. It's that it is always more worth to not play the game and let a bot do it than to play it. Because a lot of stuff is a no brainer. For instance I have probably 55+$ worth of autovotes on all of my posts because people know that my posts tends to do well, so they automatically vote on them at the 4 minute mark (it's the optimal time to vote before the other auto voters and where the reward time curve is not punishing too hard). Within 5 minutes, the curve part where the blockchain rewards early voter is completely maxed out. So unless you constantly refresh my posts, you will probably lose out to automation.
I like the game analogy, the problem to me is that the game is not fun to play. This could be effectively solved with layer two solutions with a proper recommendation system. Imo the change I am recommending is kinda applying band-aid to a cut limb. There is a much bigger problem with the way content is distributed, content sorting by rewards is a mistake and should never have happened. If you look at reddit or medium, most of the content at the top (their version of trending) isn't that interesting because it's not relevant to you. All of the interesting stuff is on your feed, but the feed on hive is just a list of stuff that was published, and you need to create that feed yourself, there is no gamification, no addictive design, no recommendations (think medium or youtube) to keep you reading more stuff.
That's another point that is a bit controversial, but I don't think having a coin that inflates that much is healthy, ideally I would like to have the reward model be based on something like the proposal system, where stakeholders can define how much money goes into curation rewards, into author rewards, into the dao itself etc.
Another thing that I thought of is simply not allowing to power down author rewards (it's not something I actively want but something I am thinking of). You earn more stake in the network which earns you curation rewards and more control over the network, I don't know right now, but about a year ago someone ran a study on the chain data, and found out that almost all of the author rewards were sold, either instantly, or powered down and sold over time, Why do we allow ourselves to have such downpressure for so little gain ? The downside with such system is that then bad actors would have stake and will be there on the platform wrecking havock forever.
Imo rewards should be defined by how much something is bringing to the ecosystem itself. If I had more time I would experiment with a front end / community thing with ads where the money is used to buy hive and then distributed to the authors depending on how many pageviews they have, that way at worst they sell and you have equal buy/sell pressure at best they power it up and keep it which just means more buy pressure.
This would solve another thing, due to the fact that a hive post only needs to get the attention of hive stakeholders, there is 0 incentive to share your post outside of it, which means that we don't get any of the "free marketing" that we would otherwise get from people sharing the content. For instance i've seen tons of tik tok videos even though I have never been on the app, just because people share them around.
Tl;dr: The game rules are not correctly set which creates a vicious circle.
Yeah I know, but give us more time, we haven't even released our first fork, it takes a lot of effort to erase all of the things that have been done wrong in the last 4 years. And we can't just solve them all in 3 months.
Haha I like how you use ned as an insult
Sorry if this is all over the place, I kinda dumped a lot of my thoughts into one comment.
I could see maybe up to 2x the voting power maybe but at the same time, logging in and checking your feed is the social part of a social media app. For better distribution it helps to have lots of smaller votes. You want people checking in every day and engaging with the content or there is no retention of users. A lot of the work done by your teams is technical which is great but at the end of the day, without users there is no point. Auto voting is a curse on the system as it concentrates the rewards among a few select users instead of actual content discovery.
Curation and engagement are two huge parts of this and breaking up the votes of larger accounts is a must. A large part of the rewards and retention problem is to much stake in the hands of too few. It gives them a lot of control over content, rewards, sps ect. To fully decentralize there will need to be a much larger spread of staked hive until we get to the stage there are 1m small accounts operating daily with a similar stake. Then you are fully decentralised. At the moment we kind of are but a few large accounts can still make a lot of important decisions by themselves.
The simplest answer is usually the best and get rid of all reward curves. That way people can vote for the content the actually like instead of trying to maximize rewards and front run a few high profile users. If your vote on a $1 post was worth the same as on a $10 post you can then choose your favorite as it cots you nothing. Simplicity is key for most things.
That's a point I agree on, I often find myself liking a post on trending but not voting on it just because it's already at high payout so I know I won't get optimal rewards.
See my other comment above I think you'll find some of my thoughts interesting as they relate to your post (content discovery / curation automation etc)
I often don't vote for good content as it has already been autovoted blindly and would rather share my small vote with the users struggling to earn a dollar per post. The curation rewards have never bothered me as I just see them as a bonus. For me the encouragement and retention is far more important in the long run and that will only happen with support from bigger accounts down to the smaller ones. There is no point in just voting sideways all the time as that will just consolidate the hive within a few accounts instead of a solid distribution system down through the ranks to further decentralize the platform eco-system.
I do find some of your thoughts very interesting especially on
As I had recently tried to bring up the subject.
https://peakd.com/hive-174578/@niallon11/ads-on-hive-blog-add-value-to-the-token-price-rather-than-take-it-away
While in the long run different apps, smt's and resource credits can add value to the system and drive the demand and price of hive. Imo that is still a long way off. Until then we need to add value to the token instead of just taking it away. BAT do this very well. Leofinance have started token buybacks and with the amount of content we create here we should be monetizing that data and putting the value back into the system. Unfortunately if we have a token where the value only flows outwards then the price will only go downwards. Its a self fulfilling prophecy as a low token price wont attract users or devs. A high token price will bring in both to work on the chain and add more value.
In these cases I often ask the author to write an additonal comment which I can then upvote to support him without increasing the curation rewards of the auto voters.
At least for the curation curve ... I presented a similar idea some time ago .
Uh huh, expecting the curators to put in the effort to properly curate is too much to expect, in fact, expecting them to shepherd more than one vote a day is too taxing on their fragile infrastructure, let's just hard code an automatic payment, eh?
Then they can strip value from what we are trying to build here with no effort at all!
If anything, votes should be doubled to twenty, imo.