You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Number One Fix to Improve Steem's Chances for Mainstream Adoption
It's a mistake. The economy has to be designed in such a way that it levels the profitability between vote trading and curation activities, which bridges the gap and has the effect of individuals distributing while at the same time sufficiently accumulating SP.
Or, the community could enforce its own standards.
I think its better that we control ourselves rather than appeal to authority to do it for us.
(If it was up to me the bots would require rewards to be declined.)
The community can't really enforce its own standards given the current economic rules. This is grossly unfair and unsustainable.
For example, during the whale experiment abit and I were using our valuable vote power primarily to downvote non-complying whales, while others including other whales were using their vote power to earn rewards (as long as they stayed below the whale experiment limit). Abit and I were happy to do that for a while in the name of an experiment but would we continue to do it for years? Forever? I think not.
We never asked for one, but I think it is telling that we never received a single donation or even a token of thanks for that experiment.
Everyone wants a better Steem, but few are individually willing to pay for it.
The economic changes are needed to create a fair and sustainable way to accomplish this. Community enforcing its own rules without the right economic structure behind it isn't that.
Yes, i agree, simply downvoting all the time does get old.
I may not have said so at the time, but steemflagrewards has shown that crowd sourcing abuse fighting is going to need to persist.
I think the reason that you didnt get alot of support is because we were too new, too few, and stinc's air of righteousness hadn't as many dents in it.
I bet more than a few troops rally to your side if you did it again.
Not that their collective 21.39stu in votes could do much for you, even after a trippling of vote values, but you'd win the popular vote.
I agree that unless the largest accounts take their thumb off the scales we will be little more than a sycophant boys club.
Have you looked at steemua?
Talk about skinning the newbs to enrich the already rich.
Smdh.
If you did it again, what would you set the limit at given today's price?
steemua? Have not seen.
If you did it again, what would you set the limit at given today's price? Doesn't really apply because the goal was to reduce the extreme superlinear so that smaller accounts have some say rather than literally none at all. With linear we have that already. The problems today are different and more pervasive.
@ steem-ua
'Delegate to us so we can vote more rewards to the top grossers, we might randomly vote you, too!'
I checked out once i found out it is heavily weighted towards how many witnesses follow you.
Just another scheme to enrich the sycophants while remaining subtle enough to scam the newbs, imo.
No doubt about that.
Would a return to the n2 with a soft cap of ~1000mv solve enough problems to justify capping one account investment?
Large investors could always have multiple accounts.
The cap could grow as the middle class expands enough to dilute larger voters, ie, keep the hockey stick on a reasonable curve.
How many >500k usd investors are we actually getting vs how many little investors would we get with the benefits of favoring smaller investments?
Its my assertion that had the experiment continued we would now have many more dolphins with a much larger daily user base.
The mined stake would lose its unnatural effect on who is 'approved' to grow, too.
I don't think so.
Sure but then they vote them together with a bot or something and we end up in the same place as before with very superlinear.
I don't know how much investment we get at different levels. It's pretty hard to measure especially given sock puppet account, stake moved between accounts, and such.
It would require some one substantially invested to keep a rein on the greedy.
Several somebodies would likely have to take one for the team.
It would have to be a community thing, no way the idea passes the gate keepers, no offense.
It appears that stinc has pushed us through a one way gate.
Smdh.
There isn't a lot of support for superlinear now that is true. It would work better with cheap downvotes I agree there. Even the original n^2 with no whale experiment probably would have worked better with cheap downvotes. The original white paper talks about downvoters pulling down the top overpaid posts (the famous crab bucket analogy), but in reality it rarely ever happened because the cost of doing so was too high. Address that and even unmodified n^2 might be significantly better.