It would be a futile effort because the bad-guys have the advantage under current steem rules... they can quickly move to new accounts and have elaborate systems to hide their abuse. They will make some profit but it is all costs to the police.
I proposed several systems to fix this:
- ability to entirely cancel every vote of another account without writing a bot to follow someone around
- non-linear reward curve
- identity verification by trusted / elected parties
It is a losing battle under current rules.
I fully support 1 & 2.
I remember reading about some of your thoughts on number 3 but I don't remember reading about a clear implementation. If you have an idea about how to implement it for Steem I look forward to reading about it.
This part made it very clear for me why n2 cure made sense and why it should be reinstituted.
Please explain why going back to n2 curve, isn't just putting more power in the hands of the biggest whales?
Are you assuming that this outcome will be a good thing because you believe the biggest whales are "the good guys"?
To me, as a minnow, returning to n2 would just mean that the king wants to be the king again, the king got tired of sharing even a few small crumbs with the minnows, and the king is not so greedy that he wants all the crumbs for himself.
Isn't that a logical and reasonable conclusion of what an n2 system represents?
Wow! Thank you once more for your awesome efforts and those uplifting thoughts.
1 and 3 are related to the one of Ostrom's principle to shared resource management, setting a clear boundary for accessing the resource.
This is a very sad observation of the state of the platform. I wonder if it pains you at all to say that about what should have been a shining example of your proof of stake concept.
It seems to me that current management has shown that they are uninterested in changing the rules in a way that meets any of your suggestions, instead relying on the "self policing" mentality which continues to prove to be an unacceptable solution.
We will see what the future holds. Thanks again!
What happen to this proposal sir @dan? What did the authority said about it? Im not a techy guy and I don't understand these terminologies but I'm hopeful that somehow steem will be a great community.
@dan I agree It does feel like a losing battle at the moment for us lowly minnows but I have worked hard and I am building up my account without paying for votes or using sock puppets but the reward system does need to change as I see too much abuse!
SO Right
Yes 1,2 ,and 3! I have to be identified if I join an exchange and trade money there. I can trade money on steem, yet no verification. I would think you would just impliment it on new accounts, and then as we flag the abusers, they slowly can't join without verification, and can no longer play that game.
I just joined steem, invested some steem i had from an exchange, and I'm really hopeful if I can get all my friends to join that i can do pretty ok. But I see these evil whales telling people what to do, flagging people for commenting on posts they don't like, and I'm honestly scared that my friends will just turn tail if they see that side of things. Fingers crossed that this stops most of the abuse. Thanks for what you have created @dan Happy new years.
So in other words, no more pseudo-anonymity? What is non-linear reward curve?
On the issue of identity verification by trusted parties, this is one of the areas which has become a big conversation I've been having with some colleagues in the #promo-steem community, and which we are hoping to find solutions for. Without wanting to ever get into a form of KYC, which I feel would be a terrible thing, we are working on building an off-site construction which we hope the community will support, and perhaps even bring into the ecosystem in the future. Ultimately, we all want Steemit and the Steem blockchain to thrive, and there are clear problems with the current way things are done. Naturally, these will take time to evolve, and many people have their own ideas about how it evolves.
Taking on the issue of people "raping the rewards pool", it seems to me that the purpose of Steemit itself is evolving. What makes a great post is subjective, but ultimately, I think what makes a great post is simply does it add value to peoples lives? If @haejin and others get great rewards from posting their TA, then fair play to them. Unfortunately, getting seen can be a problem. I have recently released some really high end music onto the DTube platform, stuff which hasn't taken me days, weeks or even months, but literally a number of YEARS to write, record, produce, mix and master (mainly due to its complexity) and received virtually nothing in the way of upvotes. However, I know there are people out there (some even commenting on this thread) who regularly post someone elses work (with a link to avoid plagurism of course) who regularly get huge upvotes for what is essentially 5 minutes work. For people who are trying to make great content, this might take them off the platform for a bit, because some content genuinely takes ages and ages to create.
I would like to see a situation where great content creators, even brand new ones, can share in the rewards and make this a place where everyone, regardless of how much Steem they hold, can grow and thrive. The biggest problem to this is the circle-jerking that goes on amongst some of the whales, and these are the people who are causing the rewards pool to be drained. The whales will benefit if the community benefits from the rewards pool, because ultimately this makes the platform attractive to great content generators, and in turn raises the price of Steem. If you have a couple of million SP in your wallet, who cares if you get a hundred dollars in a post? What makes you even richer is the price of Steem going up to $10, or hey how about even $100? And this occurs when it becomes a sound vehicle for creators and investors alike. Unfortunately, this requires more of a behavioural shift, and educating those who hold the most influence to act in a way that is more altruistic towards the minnows. That way, everyone gains at some level.
How about no bots, and accounts with no investment/community interaction cannot flag or upvote with any SP. Their SP comes into play once they reach the MIR (Minimum Interaction Required).
MIR to start voting with your SP combats the growing armies of vote bots that cannot be eradicated due to their accounts not having any material to vote or flag.
Or the easiest option. Remove user BernieSanders from the platform permanently. Everyone else seems to be able to have a discussion without calling someone a "cuck." Not to mention he represents the community as a whole as he holds a witness position, and he does so in a fashion in which will deter any talents from joining such a volatile environment, especially when it requires a 13 week investment to get anything out of your efforts. Why buy SteemPower when you can just buy STEEM and not have to put up with this user.
I prefer MIR, which would force BS to find new loopholes, and would allow for users to organically grow, even if he doesn't think their content is up to his arbitrary standards.