In full agreement about the linear rewards. Also, the rapid development cycle. To be fair, we are nearly there!
Why not a linear curation rewards curve? If you really want things to be simple and equal, what's the problem there? "Equality" doesn't mean an overwhelming majority of curation rewards go to the few whales. "Slightly favors small accounts" isn't enough. It needs to be equal.
Note - don't compare it to the current system, compare it to what a linear rewards curve would look like.
Increase Each Vote's Impact
Need more clarity. Am I right in assuming those who vote 40 times a day will not see a difference? Whereas those who vote 5 times a day would see an increase in influence? That's fine, and incentivizes casual curators. As long as this does not also penalize regular curators who really keep the site organized. I sure hope this is not HF15 and target votes changed to 5.
A linear curation reward curve would remove all incentive to vote on good content (for the purpose of curation rewards). If your vote is linear then it will increase the payout of a post by the same amount no matter how many or few votes the post has. Then, your weight compared to others for curation rewards is also linear. The result is 25% of your vote always goes in your pocket no matter what you vote on. Incentives for curating content go away. We compared it to today's curation rewards because we believe they are in a pretty good place and want to keep them as close as possible to how they work today. The mechanism may be slightly different, but the result should be the same.
Thank you for your clarification. It makes sense to me now. Terrific work replying to all concerns and comments here, by the way. Keep it up!
Fully agree, you are doing a great job here @vandeberg ! Thanks!
Now many people just vote on stuff because they expect many others to vote on it as well, for example because an article is written by a "famous" author who always receives many votes. That means the voting process often is more about speculating what others may vote for, instead just to vote because one really likes an article.
If one would receive the same reward for every of ones votes, then only people would start to vote for stuff they really like.
I intentionally try to vote for articles with only a few votes, if I feel they are good, even if I know my reward will be smaller then.
No, a linear curation reward curve would kill one of the main ideas that I have about Steemit. Which is to surface undervalued content and getting rewarded for this effort. If the curation reward is just a static increment, then there is absolutely no incentive to search for anything yet undiscovered.
I see that differently (probably also because I earn more by writing articles instead of rewarding them). I believe you that sometimes you really get rewarded by discovering undiscovered stuff (I know that you are a very good curator), but I think often curating is more about to reward stuff of famous authors at the right time.
Of course there are curators like you who seek "hidden" stuff, but I have to disagree that articles are "good" only because they have many votes as @vandeberg wrote. I can conclude that also from my own articles where I often have more than hundred votes but only lets say 15 views. How can the 90 % of voters, who didn't even read my article, decide if it is good or bad?
Another example: let two persons, one of them being a "famous old" member, and the other one an unknown "minnow", write exactly the same article: you will see that the well known user has many votes within a very short time, whereas the unknown user has only a few votes within a long timespan. I will bet on that.
This observation is correct and it´s exactly the reason, why reward-oriented curation tries to spot content from unknown users. Trust me, try to maximize your return on curation for a while (if you can afford spending the time that this requires…) and one of the first things you will stop doing is voting on high-rep authors. As you say, the usual suspects of the trending page collect rewards so early after posting that there is simply no window of opportunity for performance oriented curators. Therefore I say, incentivizing content discovery actually counteracts on this kind of inequity that you find faulty here.
Thanks for your interesting thoughts!
Don't you think that most of the people will be honest voters, vote for posts and comments they like of think deserves a vote? 25% curation rewards in my pocket? Well most of the time not, not even in the situation when we would have linear curves. Days I do not spend any minute on Steemit do not get votes from me since I do object vote bots and I truly believe we shall think of something to prevent auto voters. Those days I will not get any rewards. Most other days when I spend lota of time on Steemit, I try and create interesting posts, read other peoples posts, comment and even get into conversations. And while doing so, I casts votes for those posts and comments I like. Don't you think most of the people will actually do that? The rewards are in the posts anyway, compared to curating. Even a superman curator can only earn cents. Only whales can earn much more than cents, but that requires an investments of several 100k US$. I know better ways of investing to get to returns. I call for testing linear curation curves in practise since otherwise we are assuming!
The proposed curation rewards curve change is to preserve the current behavior. You are actually proposing we change even more. We are trying to eliminate hardforks that change too many variables at once.
I agree fully with implementing limited changes to each HF to be able to get better live test results. If not for this HF, plan it for next HF.
That doubletalk (akin to the spin used by marketers who prefer to give a 'discount' to some customers instead of charging the rest extra). Influence is absolutely the most zero-sum thing in the entire system. If you give more influence to some, it means less to others.
In fact that is exactly what is being proposed. They're using different words to try to spin it.