RE: Steem experiment: Burn post #1
I support your approach because it is a possibility for larger stakeholders to address the issue of excessive rewards without changing the platform mechanics, and thus doesn´t require Steemit Inc. endorsement.
However, in case Steemit Inc. considers this an issue too, I would propose the following changes for consideration (I´m careful here , since I might well miss some technical or game theoretical obstacles).
- introducing a cap on reward disbursement, e.g. 250 USD per post. The height of the cap should be dynamic based on parameters that correlate with the growth of the Steem(it) economy and continuously revised and set by witness consensus.
- after the 7d payout window rewards beyond this cap are distributed to the entire community in a stake-weighted manner. Probably needs to be batched to keep the number of transactions on a reasonable level, e.g. payout once per week
The main benefit I see with this approach is that it would foster the coherence of our community. No reason anymore to envy trending authors, since every user (with SP holdings) benefits from their success. The reward pool remains the same, yet an excessive allocation towards individual users would be prevented. Also, it would add a further incentive to hold SP.
I´m glad to see you contributing again.
"introducing a cap on reward disbursement, e.g. 250 USD per post."
Caps are arbitrary, and generally only supported by Marxists SJWs who think "they know better." They also utterly fail in concept. The idea of applying the same cap to someone in the US and someone in Venezuela is so fucking laughable that it's hard to believe any thought even went into the suggestion.
"The main benefit I see with this approach is that it would
foster the coherence of our community.further my communist SJW ends"FTFY.
First of all, I had to look up what SJW means. Hope this counts as proof that I'm not a SJW :) Also, just for the records, the ideas of Communism and Marxism have zero appeal to me.
I do understand though that alone the word "cap" is like waving a red flag to free market believers (I consider myself being one). Therefore, I was somewhat prepared to get a response like the one from you.
What I would like to emphasise though, I'm not suggesting to cap rewards but to cap the amount that a single account can extract from the reward pool per post. The reward finding process would remain untouched and payouts beyond the cap would not be showered on the community in order to further social justice (something I anyway consider an illusion) but distributed in a stake-weighted manner to SP holders. I'm quite convinced that Marx would not have supported this idea.
Why shouldn't somebody in Venezuela get the same reward as someone in the US if they deliver the same quality and worth to the platform?
I submit flagging based on rewards being too high for a post to be just as Marxist as putting a cap on the post earnings. You can take an extreme situation where the user posts "Horay It's Saturday" and is obviously upvoting himself through bots but often I read about flagging when clearly that is not at all the case.
I agree with your view. Having the possibility to self-vote in the system is indefensible, I cannot think of a single good reason why it's useful. And I try to explain here how flagging based on rewards could do more harm than good.
sorin.cristescu: "the possibility to self-vote in the system is indefensable"
The comment then voted up $0.77 by a voting bot. Do you expect me to believe you didn't pay that voting bot to update your comment? This makes me smile. I'll vote it up too.
This is how @gentlebot works. It randomly upvotes people. One cannot buy a vote from it.
Well, believe it or not, I didn't pay that bot and have no idea who paid it. I don't know anything about @gentlebot. Shouldn't you be able to see on the blockchain if I paid for it ? Or maybe, by looking at timestamp, even what other account paid for it ?
I do use self-votes myself when I deem that the effort I've put into writing a comment deserves a payout, even small, and am not sure anyone else will upvote my comment. I've also used minnowbooster to indirectly pay random user to upvote my comments. Overall you may say that I'm experimenting with the Steemit system, taking it out for a ride.
The fact that I've tested features and decided to use some because it's how the system, in its current state, is supposed to be used, doesn't imply that I believe all its features to be good. :-)
Yes, so taking the money and burning it is much, much better because it's not "Marxist."
There's definitely no good content out there being missed because everyone's chasing whales in hopes of big payouts.
This is an interesting approach. I don't like protocol changes for anything that can be resolved without.
Creating a whale account to downvote at 6.5 days any posts with rewards in excess of 250 USD would have a very similar impact, except that the overage is redistributed by Rshares instead of by stake, and could be implemented without a protocol change... and that's what flagging does, but the unfortunate decision to use the 'flagging' iconography and terminology instead of calling it downvoting or redistribution makes it seem much more aggressive.
Thanks for your reply!
I think the impact of such a modality would be very different and quite problematic. As you say, one difference is a psychological one which is that it would be perceived as a negation of rewards in contrast to the distribution of rewards to the benefit of all stake-holders. True, Rshares would be freed-up for re-allocation, yet only authors with posts in pending payout would benefit. Non-publishing stakeholders or authors with no active post would remain empty-handed.
However, the main concern I have with this measure is that it would impair the reward finding process for posts above the reward cap and thus eliminate reward levels as a needed ranking parameter. If it is certain that every post will be trimmed down to a certain reward cap shortly before payout, then there is no incentive to vote on posts that are already performing above the cap. Because all curation rewards of those votes would be nullified with that downvote at 6.5 d. The result would be a big cluster of unranked posts with a payout level at the cap.
Otherwise, I fully agree with you that the "flagging" terminology is highly unfavourable. Calling it a downvote is just marginally better. In contrast, redistribution, yes, that would be something!
E.g. like
🔼: Allocate rewards
🔄: Redistribute rewards
instead of upvote/downvote...
I love the idea of calling it a redistribution!
I agree with you for the most part. Some changes or improvements to content discovery are needed.
At the present juncture my main position is to wait until we see how the upcoming changes to curation rewards actually impact the ecosystem.
lol Yes, I made a whole topic on an alternative to "flagging" for inexperienced users, it's kind of like a warning instead of a down-vote LOL
redistribution is pretty much a commie term in political circles, but used in a free to join, free to leave "vote with your feet" place like this it could work, and likely work well. More like "dividend sharing" actually, and I like that idea better ;)
Agree, "dividend sharing" is a much better term. Cheers!
Thank YOU! :D
I support the idea of calling it Redistribution... Though all of this seems too technical for me. I'll try to leave leading the ship to people who are capable of that.
It's just that it's hard to know who qualifies to save the situation.
It´s every single member of our community that qualifies to make proposals how to resolve any issue that arises.
If the technical aspects of Steemit are a source of negativity for you, then simply ignore them. Just focus on your content and engagement with the community (like you just did). Everything else is of lesser importance. So stay onboard, don´t leave the ship!
Cheers
I credit @josephsavage for having the idea of relabelling downvotes as (reward) redistribution. Let´s see whether we can create some momentum for a #proposal.
You look at post like this
https://steemit.com/seoul/@shinhan/32pqgo-seoul
Is that worth 16 SBD?
I personally would say no, but something like a fair valuation of content simply doesn´t exist.
Hey guys. Really refreshing to read constructive comments after I just scrolled through some flagging wars... @shaka, those are very interesting ideas. I think that a reward cap is a great idea. Calling it redistribution sounds really constructive as well. What do you guys think about a maximum value of an upvote which would lead to more diversification?
Apart from that, what do you think about the Steemit hierachy? We have Witnesses and that is about it. Do you think introducing other levels, like "Admins" who can decide about problematics regarding individual posts could be an approach?
Exciting times, I hope we are sailing in the right direction.
A cap is an interesting idea.
And I do agree with @shaka that valuation is a very subjective thing and sometimes it's hard to also justify why a picture of a street corner or a picture of what one had last night cannot be worth $10.
I ain't well versed in the steem witness yet so I can't say anything about that. It would be of my opinion to keep the structure as simple as possible for the time being.
Sometimes a user may have devoted a lot of energy before to build up a lot of SP or they had the foresight to buy up lots of SP when it was trading lower. They also need to be rewarded for that. So, a SQUARE ROOT of an upvote may serve as a better idea.
I plan to come up with some statistics later in my posts and look at the relationship of STEEM PRICE vs. steem newbies (minnows) upvote success rate. Stay tuned.
Thanks for your kind reply.
However, let me stress that I haven´t suggested a cap on rewards but rather a cap on the disbursement an author can receive from his rewards per post. The remainder of the the rewards would be distributed to SP holders in a stake-weighted manner
As for the hierarchy, I think there shouldn´t be any. The only and strictly quantitative discriminating factor between accounts is the amount of SP they hold or have command over. Qualitatively, it´s all about individual abilities like content creation, engagement, networking etc.
Even witnesses are users like everyone else but with an additional (and crucial) role to fullfill. Something like an "Admin" with exclusive extra-rights would be in absolute no go for me.
Cheers!
Wow, that's a good idea. I see so many people arguing/complaining about the reward pool rape and/or unequal SP distribution, but no one suggested a good systematic solution except you (as far as I know). I think that you should make a post about it. Cheers! : )
Yes, I think we should act now rather than wait for it to get worse by the day. But I ask of you to change it slowly but steadily, rather than making an abrupt change cause it may affect the big ones, leaving them dissatified. But we need stability for long term benifits; I support your campaign!
I second that!
dear @smooth thanks for your poste becous your poste is very helpfull for me so me flow up vote restime my poste https://steemit.com/allah/@thawfiqur/islam-is-our-religion-so-who-love-islam-please-up-vote-becous-all-muslim-love-allah
Yes! I have favored the idea of a cap since day one, but have had zero traction whenever I bring it up!
If you introduce a $250 USD per post, you won’t find any posts that are worth more than that on this platform. In other words, writers who value their time more than $250 USD per post won’t write here. I don’t believe that’s the best strategy for the future of Steemit.