Yes. @transisto has been the big proponent for this. He's suggested as few as 1 per day (with 10x power), which didn't get much traction. Lately he suggested dropping from 10 per day to 5 per day (with each vote twice as powerful).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I see, thanks.
On another note, what do you think of making curation rewards "linear"? Currently, people auto-vote content creators who tend to get lots of upvotes in order to maximize curation rewards, but that obviously disturbs natural PoB.
If instead, one would get the same curation rewards independently of what he voted on, one would start voting for the content he enjoys.
The reason for increasing curation rewards is to encourage people to find undervalued posts, but it is fair to say that this has failed. What I see instead is that curators find out which content creators have a dedicated group of upvoters and start to front-run the votes. This leads to a concentration of rewards on known content creators and destroys pure enjoyment.
I think that for a social media platform to be enjoyable, people just need to curate what they enjoy. Currently, if you enjoy a post that is guaranteed not to get upvotes after you, then you are missing out on curation rewards. Doesn't seem right as a model.
I think EIP generally helped in improving curation results, but I agree it's still far from perfect. One thing that would help would probably be somehow making it clearer how the rules work now, but the receipt of curation rewards comes long after the vote, so mostly people don't even know how the rules function, and so the actual functioning of the rules don't influence the behavior of many voters. But it's hard to see how to do this.
I don't think just dropping curation rewards would fix anything, as I suspect we'd see the rise of "gaming" based on a search of author rewards instead.
I am not sure I was clear. I didn't suggest dropping curation rewards, just making them equal.
For example: a 10$ vote gets 5$ in curation rewards. A 20$ gets 10$ in curation rewards. This should happen independently of other votes on the same post.
In the current model, if others vote after you on the same post, curation rewards increase. This causes people to auto-vote the same pool of creators, expecting others to vote as well.
Gaming based on author reward is perfectly natural, they just need to provide the most value/entertain, or circle jirk with others but that can not be eliminated.
OK, I see, you're suggesting that curation rewards be independent of relative voting time, but still leave curation rewards linear. It's an interesting idea. It leaves an incentive to vote (to get curation rewards), but it removes the incentive to try to be the first to upvote content that's expected to be popular.
In theory, of course, the current system was designed to encourage early voting and discourage late voting, as late voters get much less curation rewards. The idea was that this would tend to put a natural cap on how much posts would get upvoted and also to encourage upvoting of content that everyone would like, not just the voter.
But I would agree that in practice, this has mostly failed, in part because many people don't know how to maximize under those rules. And for those that do, it's become clear that it is easier to optimize via a bot set to vote for popular authors versus the potential losses associated with not voting enough manually. In theory, a dedicated manual voter who wants to maximize his rewards can beat the bots on returns, but I think it's just too much work.
Bots setup to vote before the 5 minute were also supposed to discourage automated voting of popular authors by bots, since it was supposed to generate a race towards the bottom on curation rewards (with bots voting ever earlier to capture more of a shrinking curation pie), but I don't see this occurring either (admittedly, I've only done eyeball observations using hivestats.io, I haven't spent any time analyzing all the curation data, but from what I've seen, I think I'm correct on this). Again, it's probably mostly just laziness, even by the bot operators.
Maybe it should be no surprise: in a wealthy society, people often pass up opportunities for money that require effort. Generally speaking, the larger stakeholders on Hive are probably in higher income brackets. And OTOH, small stakeholders aren't really that incentivized to work harder either, because the curation rewards are much smaller.
Doing some quick napkin math, I guess this shouldn't be surprising: a stakeholder with 100K USD worth of hive (a substantial stakeholder, somewhere between 400-500K HP right now), at best they might be able to get about a 20% APR by careful and consistent manual voting. They can probably increase that a little by adding in a bot to help. Alternatively, they can probably get 10% or so just by using a bot at the moment. So full time manual curation is only going to net you around 10K USD per year (vs just using a voting trail). That's a lot of work for the return (for someone who has 100K they can put into such a volatile investment as crypto). So for those who do manually curate, it's going to be driven more by considerations beyond just curation rewards.
Your idea is probably worth trying on a trial basis, but it's probably contentious enough that it wouldn't be easy to get consensus on it. I suppose this is one of those cases where something like SMTs would be nice as a way to do a trial run.
Yes exactly, that's what I meant. Amazing breakdown of all the economics that lead to the environment we are in.
I think in the last paragraph you meant to say that it is hard to get consensus on that (or not easy). And yes, I agree, it probably won't happen anytime soon.
Talking about it is the first step, good ideas sometimes catch on.
Yes, I actually edited it already. I usually find that I post and then have to edit the post for 5-10 minutes afterwards.
I do agree with Marki99 and your general observations, also based on eyeballing, not in-depth analyses. The gaming effect to be the first in voting new content, is not something most of the users will go for, we can't be at the screen for the entire day since the revenues are too little for most of the users. I actually believe after trying for 4 years reward based blogging, we shall move away from complex reward mechanism, which includes curation revenues. Curation rewards can be made easy by giving a fixed percentage of the vote value. No gaming needed anymore, since revenue is always the same, regardless of time of vote and order of vote. Added to that, introduce a random post channel with the same period as payout period and make this the prime channel of all Blog UIs to HIVE. Maybe even create a Comment channel like the Post channel, like Twitter, or mix new comments with posts in a channel with the option to the user to allow personal settings...I know, these are frontend features not related to the blockchain rules itself.
More strategic, I think HIVE needs to launch SMT quickly. At the same time, remove distribution of HIVE tokens to content creators and curators. SMT tokens shall serve the purpose of rewarding content. HIVE tokens maybe used to support communities in one or the other way. Maybe by creating community owned HIVE accounts with large vote power that will be used by curator teams. The community will have a say in which team is allowed what accounts etc etc. Key for this to happen is: 1) transparency (not in form of posts, but a website with all information 2) community voting system (part of mentioned website, not part of proposal system) 3) super easy discoverability of this website (buttons/links at all frontends, prominent placed, not hidden) 4) human powered governance system (to address miss conduct, abuse and all) paid by the HIVE blockchain. I believe these 4 points are required, though I never discussed this with other users/people in detail to understand if I missed something.
So, the guy that made accounts in the names of famous people on the pretext that when those famous people got here he would give them the accounts, but has since powered some of those down is getting traction in how to get more curation rewards for less work?
If we are trying to build the network effect of the inflation, shouldn't we be spreading more votes, and not less?
I don't know that he's getting a lot of traction, that really remains to be seen. All that seemed clear at first glance is there wasn't any interest in 1 vote per day.
Lol, I remember the firestick advocating that 3+ years ago.
I think he called for a slider that went to 400 rather than 100.
FWIW, I think his main argument is that 10 votes per day drives big voters to auto-vote, which I think has some truth to it. That in turn leads to centralization of voting (how well it then gets distributed is another question, of course).
Yes, I agree that voting a large stake responsibly is not easy work, and asking that stake to sit idle is alot to ask, too.
When Dan first balanced the math it doesn't appear that he accounted for the ninjamine having such an outsized influence on the pool in so few hands, nor how that would filter out from those centralized points.
At this point, I am at a loss how to move forward, increasing incentives to newbs is unlikely to overcome our reputation in the market.
That being said, the whale experiment got us stirred up pretty quick.
Any chance of a return to a community enforced cap on what any one person can take out, thereby increasing the influence of everyone else?
I haven't look since the fork, but a 500mv cutoff impacted ~70 accounts.
Beyond that, remediation of our image seems, to me, to be our key imperative.
Well, beyond the efficiency upgrades and smteees!™.
My own ideas for a social media platform (if that's really even the correct phrase to describe what I want to build) is radically different from the reward system of the base layer of Hive. They are so different in fact, that the only interplay between that 2nd layer system and Hive will be the need for RC to publish transactions (to pay for the costs of maintaining the network).
Isn't that what smteees!™ will give us?
I'm looking forward to hearing you flesh that out a little.
SMTs are one proposed solution. It's quite different from my own ideas, but that doesn't mean they might not also solve some problems here, and I know many people are interested in some solution of that type. I plan to put some thought into both topics after we get thru HF24.
Do what?
Ok, but where you gonna find all them posts and not be giving the rewards to scammers that are only here to maximize satoshis?
Spreading out votes increases the odds of voting rewards to folks that want the ecosystem to increase in value, and not just skim as much as they can.
But, newsflash, you already know that, don't ya?
I wonder how many people thought that was actually Tyler they were voting rewards to?