You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Make Steemit Great Again: Fork This Place!

in #steemit8 years ago

5 is a great idea, but im pretty sure i ts not workable. Unless you just send it back to the entire curation pool, not just the pool for that post.

Yes, that's the idea. To send it back to the curation pool in general.

Youre also creating a huge guaranteed rewards at the 30 minute mark for any post that has a decent amount of support

The idea isn't to reward the first voter at the end of the auction. The rewards need to be spread further back on the vote list. The problem right now is

  1. Early voters with larger stakes eat up a rather large portion of the rewards, even with the reverse auction.
  2. Voters coming in at 30 minutes eat up a large portion of the rest of the rewards.
  3. Whales effectively kill the rewards for most voters coming behind them, almost regardless of voting time.

You can have voters 1-10 taking 25% or 50% of the curation rewards and voters 30 or 40 getting 0%, even with a decent amount of stake. Then, voter 80 or 100 can come in and take another 5 or 10%, if they have a much larger stake. The aim would be to make sure that voter 30 and 40 aren't always getting 0. Their vote is really no different in terms of discovery or ranking, and even though they beat half of the rest of the voters to the punch, they can come away with nothing at all while very late voters with a larger stake can still grab a piece of the pie.

I get the advantages of having a larger stake. But even with mine being 27,000+ SP, if I don't vote at the "right" time, my rewards can vary pretty significantly. It can be a matter of earning less than 0.1 SP or earning 5+ SP. And the time really doesn't even have much to do with it. It mostly has to do with which user voted before me, even if that other user's vote is only one block earlier (3 seconds or less).

Sort:  

See my reply to BP below. If you just send it back to the pool, it will end up distributed the same way as the pool currently is. If youre sacrificing 50% to the reverse auction now, and you send it allback to the pool, all youll do is just double everyone's curation rewards.

A big part of the problem is that even though the reverse auction effects the payout for early voters, it doesn't change their weight, so they still dominate the curation rewards distribution, they just give up most of the funds their domination entitles them to.

The real solution to this is to attenuate their effective voting stake in the auction, not their reward. That is to say, if you vote at the 90% RA mark (3.3 minutes in), then for the distribution of curaiton rewards, your vote should count likeyou had 10% of your SP. So a 100K SP voter in the third minute shouldbe treated for distribution purposes like a 10Ksp voter.

The real solution to this is to attenuate their effective voting stake in the auction, not their reward. That is to say, if you vote at the 90% RA mark (3.3 minutes in), then for the distribution of curaiton rewards, your vote should count likeyou had 10% of your SP. So a 100K SP voter in the third minute shouldbe treated for distribution purposes like a 10Ksp voter.

Yeah, I like that idea. Maybe this should be explored more. I'm sure we'll chat about it.

A big part of the problem is that even though the reverse auction effects the payout for early voters, it doesn't change their weight, so they still dominate the curation rewards distribution, they just give up most of the funds their domination entitles them to.

I maintain that's a design feature, not a problem. The purpose of the reverse auction is to reduce curation rewards for easy votes. Period. It must make obvious strategies self-defeating.

it was meant to discourage self voting which is a non issue.

You keep saying this and I keep thinking you're missing something. How can you know it's a non-issue when the curve is currently dis-incentivizing it?

Because people who want to upvote themselves are going to do it regardless. It's not like there is another solution for them to cheat the system. The fact that we hardly see anyone upvoting themselves means its a non issue.

If we made the curve linear (what you call "removing" the curve, which is also very confusing)

Why do you need a curve at all? Isn't voting power based on how much power someone has? There is no need for a curve which is why I suggested we remove it.

a whale could come along and spam empty posts to the blockchain, upvote all of them, and receive a vastly higher reward than they would in the current system.

Whales could already upvote themselves now and make a significant amount of money why are none doing it?

Your answer is to downvote, but why hack the solution when we can bake it into the algorithms?

Downvoting is not a hack, it is already built in. You just have to use the feature.
The algorithms happens to penalize almost every single posts on the platform, surely it can't be the best solution right..

Then, voter 80 or 100 can come in and take another 5 or 10%, if they have a much larger stake.

30 or whatever still might get nothing, depending on how much SP he has, but he'll always do better for the whale coming in than he would have done otherwise.

That is to say, voter 30 never loses out when a whale comes in after him. (though if his stake is small enough, it might not be enough to actually get him a payout. but it will get him closer i think always). If he's not making money on a post with a faily high payout, its because he is dominated by the medium sized guys in postition 1-29.