You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Make Steemit Great Again: Fork This Place!

in #steemit • 8 years ago (edited)

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.

8 years ago in #steemit by
$0.00
    2 votes
    Reply 3
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago 

    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.

    [-]
     8 years ago 

    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.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 years ago 

      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..

      $0.00
        Reply