You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Future of Steemit
The abusive votes would actually be worth more under n^2.
Sorry, but that is only true if you isolate these posts from the rest of the rewardpool.
Under n^2 other posts with more r_shares would get much higher rewards, making it more profitable to combine r_shares.
This would create incentives for a curation process - just like intended in the original whitepaper.
The rewards that were distributed prior to the hardfork can be used as a base point. There was a certain threshold, I can’t remember what it was (guesstimate around $50) where the posts above it made less, and the posts below it made more when we switched to linear rewards.
For users who have more SP than that threshold, their vote is worth more under n^2 than linear.
The threshold does change of course as the price of STEEM goes up, and it also does fluctuate based on the voting behavior of all the users.
Regardless of the specific place the threshold exists at though, there will be users with enough SP to be above it, and for those users their votes add more under n^2 than under linear rewards.
I should have probably been a bit more precise with my original reply.
Under
nranchorelaxo has absolutely no incentive to vote for anything other than himself or his buddy haejin; His influence on the reward pool is always the same.Under
n^2, if he only voted for his buddy ( and nobody else voted for him - which is pretty much the case ) then he would have less influence on the reward pool than he has now.Sidenote: Before hf 19 he would have to vote for 40 comments, making your threshold totally inaccurate.
Either we are talking about different things or your math is wrong.
If we are just talking about the amount of rewards that a single user with his level of SP can reward to himself or his friends with his vote alone (no other significant votes) then he has more power under n^2.
You are right, 40 to 10 did change things. Even if you rolled back both changes though, he would still be able to extract more with 40 n^2 votes spread across 40 posts/comments than he can today with the 10 using linear.
I understand the argument of n^2. Under any system with moderately even distribution of stake, you are right about n^2, and it is a perfect system to combat this type of abuse. The problem is that with the distribution of STEEM, there is such a distance between the larger stakeholders and everyone else, that individual stakeholders can with their single vote essentially reach the tipping point or critical mass at which point their vote squared significantly surpasses the votes of a majority of the other voters and actually pulls more rewards, even though it is technically just ‘one vote’.
We are talking about the same thing and my math is alright.
There are simply too many parameters to give you any example numbers.
Did you not notice, how selfvoting only became a massive problem after hf19 ?
Even with the disproportional distribution STEEM has, this is not necessarily true.
First of all: If any other post had twice the votes, it would get 4 times the shares in rewards.
The effect of flags would change significantly, too.
A shareholder with half the SP could 'steal' more than half the payout of those abusive posts.
It would also have some indirect effects; As it would influence voting behavior.
There has been a dramatic increase in self voting since Hf 19. For the average user (even someone such as myself with a decently large amount of SP) our votes are worth more under linear rewards. For those of us on our end of the spectrum (most users) who want to use their voting power to reward themselves, self voting is more profitable under linear rewards when compared to n^2. That is why we have seen such an increase since the switch to linear rewards. I agree with you on that.
In the interest of not just repeating the same arguments over and over, since you don’t seem to agree with my point, maybe let’s just end with the above statement - since I know on that at least, we agree.
I will have the last word then:
My initial statement still stands strong.
I invite you to read my post on n^2.
I did not tag it #witness-category, although I could and probably should have.
I have read it.
Here are how rewards were distributed just prior to HF19.
I don't think n^2 is gonnna fix things. It has actually probably not got worse with linear rewards, but I've not seen a more recent version of this chart, so couldn't prove it.
Sadly, it is impossible to compare any data, since hf 19 brought a whole host of changes.
nI'd bet rewards distributions are practically indistinguishable.
Most of the Steem is still all of the power.