You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit is not decentralized and it's causing a retention problem. Why not give some power to the people that earn it? Here's my suggestion.

in #steemit8 years ago (edited)

Reputation is based on votes right? The more votes you get the higher your reputation. That sounds fine to link your voting power to your reputation to prevent sybil attacks. but there is one small problem with that.

Our first porn star on Steemit got a reputation of 60 in about two days. It took me three months to get that.

That's one big issue with @richardcrill 's suggestion.

However, a much, much, much bigger issue, from the platform functionality and power distribution standpoint, is what @timcliff brought up, higher up in the comments section to this post - reputation is easily gamed by high SP accounts.

It costs about $10 to make an account and something like 5 to 10 votes from a "mega whale" (1 million SP +) account to get an account from the initial 25 to 60+ reputation. For only $100 and "spending" 50, or so, votes, a mega whale account owner suddenly gains 10 more accounts of high voting influence, thanks to the reputation loophole that @richardcrill is suggesting.

Before we know it, mega whales with 1 million SP will have 5 million SP influence, due to all the cheap voting power that they can get through churning out these cheap accounts to take advantage of the aforementioned loophole.

I mean, they can have 1,000 accounts for just $10,000.00. What's that to a person that has over $500,000.00 in SP? I'll tell you what, pittance. It's an easy call.

Sort:  

Very good point. Thank you for explaining that so clearly. This is exactly why I asked for feedback from the community. Thank you. It's obvious to me now that it wouldn't be a good idea without making changes to the way that reputation works. I'll have to keep thinking.

Good point. I'm not gonna spam my previously mentioned idea here, but I'd be interested in your take on it.