Id be willing to entertain moving to 60:40 or 50:50 reward:curation as a reaction to too much self vote abuse hence spam.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Id be willing to entertain moving to 60:40 or 50:50 reward:curation as a reaction to too much self vote abuse hence spam.
Thanks! I think anything in that direction would be helpful.
There must be a author/curation split level at which self-voting actually becomes less profitable than voting randomly. That would not be the optimal level either, but some curation percentage slightly below that would mean that it was easier to earn Steem with a quick glance to evaluate quality, than by self-voting. I might try and consider the maths more thoroughly later.
Yes, I see what you mean. I should qualify my statement by saying:
If the curation percentage is high enough, then it would only be more profitable to vote on your own content if it could compete with the quality of other posts. For example, at a 99% curation reward level, the most significant factor in deciding what to vote for would be the quality of the content (instead of whether of not it was yours).
I'm certainly not saying that having such a high percentage would be optimal, just that such an equilibrium level must exist. Your point has clarified however that a mathematical deduction of this level isn't possible.
Since VP is weighted by the holdings of SP, the actual point at which self votes may become more valuable than votes from the community depends on the SP of the account.
~10,000 minnow votes are yet unequal in ability to impart reward than one whale vote.
For minnows, self votes are silly. Since people like to receive votes, they also like to reciprocate when they receive them. HF19 leaves minnows with ~10 votes they can cast daily before causing their VP to be unable to fully recharge. By self voting a minnow can receive those 10 votes.
However, by properly curating and casting those votes, accompanied by relevant comments, on the posts of others, the entire pool of ~100 votes those others possess becomes motivated to reciprocate with votes on the comment. Also, by voting other's posts, and commenting relevantly, those votes can attract followers who might upvote your posts daily.
Self votes don't even compare to the returns proper curation offers. This yet ignores the real value of curation, as the intercourse with those whose ideas you find interesting is worth more (at least to me) than financial rewards.
I haven't addressed pandering - in which minnows seek to gain votes from whales. It is a problem, as it deprives the community of content of higher quality panderers might generate were they to actually concern themselves with something other than rewards. It also focuses rewards into those accounts already possessing substantial holdings, and clogs the comments section with irrelevant fluff.
This makes no sense. Regardless of curation level, by self voting you increase your rewards. Since this seems to be the only consideration of self voters, they'd still do it. Upvotes on a post increase the author reward for the post, and that's their goal.
This imbalance is untenable. The white paper states the intention was to distribute ~90% of rewards to ~30% of accounts, but, as the chart shows ~99% of rewards inure to ~1% of accounts. The various selfvoting, botnet voting, vote timing collusion, circle jerking cliques, etc., are degrading the ability of the platform to grow, and thus causing Steem itself to not appreciate.
It is the weighting of VP by SP that causes all these problems, and additionally makes of Steem a security in the estimation of the SEC (at least according to my understanding of the regulations), which is a whole 'nother universe of problems I suspect none of us wants.
Under a hypothetical 100% curation / 0% author reward incentive, you will make most reward by voting on the posts which subsequently receive the most votes, whether these are your posts or not. So the optimal strategy is absolutely to vote on the best posts. A 99% curation incentive is little different. Of course, at 99% curation / 1% author reward, nobody would bother to post, but somewhere (I suspect much higher than 25%) is an optimal level.
You are pretty much right, except that a) financial rewards aren't the only issue that determines participation. It actually matters very little to me, personally. But, I am weird =p, and b) because financial rewards are so important to so many, characterizing the most upvoted posts as the 'best' is inaccurate, unless by best you only mean 'the best post to game for financial rewards'.
Again, I believe the real solution to the problem that rewards are being too concentrated doesn't involve the split between curation and creation rewards, but rather how VP is weighted by SP.
I have posted numerous times on the matter, and my views have so far been but reinforced as time passes. Full and in depth exposition of what I think is the best way for Steemit to move forward would create a wall of text here, and that wouldn't be appropriate.
I'm not particularly against changing the split. I just don't think it addresses the central issue.
I have read some of your arguments elsewhere and have some sympathy with them. In practice though, I just don't think Steem could change to the extent you would like, but increasing curation split may be feasible. I'm aware that many unresolved issues would remain.
I agree. Jumping straight to 50/50 might be a bit too big of a change, but I'd be very curious to see how moves to 66:34 and 60:40 would pan out.
I think it would help reduce the problems and self-voters would be more inclined to spend their votes on quality posts instead of only themselves. So authors might end up getting a smaller slice, but of a much bigger pie.
I see what you're saying, but I suspect most self-voters are actually being rational agents, but with short-term preferences (possibly shorter than they intend!). If the economic incentives change so that some pretty minimal curation activity nets them more profit than voting on their own low-effort content, then the abuse will decline and/or their content improves to make it more profitable for them to self-vote on it. The network wins.
Do you think the abuse should be dealt with in some other way?
<"...you get 25% of what your vote was, the other 75% goes to the author, so if your vote is $0.12 then you get back $0.03 for voting."
This is much different that what I understood. I thought that curators received 25% of the post value, so that the curator in your example would receive $25.
I am now alarmed that it is my comments that produce over 2/3 of my rewards LOL
The problem with flagging is that there is a pretty severe opportunity cost.
A person flagging is granting rewards to all posts which have active votes instead of using their vote to gain rewards. Yes, some people will do it (perhaps gaining social capital) which is good, but if we simply consider rewards, and not reputations, I think this action actually isn't economically rational.