You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Update: HF21 Testnet, SPS, EIP, Rewards API, SMTs!
How would it work if you get larger votes?
Losing 2/3 of my rewards looks scary. It most certanly makes creating content i do less worth it.
As mentioned many times before, the key thing of EIP is in
It's change of economic model that, simplifying it to something like "this post will get x instead of y" basing on a shift in rewards is wrong, because it doesn't assume shift in behavior (which should change because of shift of incentives).
Currently, user without SP could take advantage of bit bots, go to trending, gain reputation all that while having negative cost (i.e. earning on that), because selling SP to bit bots is just the easiest way to earn. With 50/50 it will no longer be that simple, because you could earn with your own SP by voting for good content as much as self voting or selling SP to bit bots.
I expect you gtg to start liking music and upvoting me if i lose 50% of my upvotes because of EIP. haha
I just know this seems like i have to look forward to reduced rewards and if that is the case i will turn into Durins Bane and not lose this time around. :D
I will smote your ruins upon the mountainside. Or something like that. haha
True. However for most users the chances of a large account coming along and upvoting their post will remain small, even if the shift in incentives does change behaviour. As such it's useful to understand how their post payout would change, as a "pre-behavioural" starting point.
I think that downvotes will be the change that stops the majority of the bid-bot issues. This is worth the experiment.
Large accounts currently earn around 21% of vote value in curation under 25/75, so this will probable double to around 42% of vote value under 50/50. It's still a long way off the close-to-100% of vote value that could be earned by circular voting or higher rewards from vote selling etc. It's a step in the right direction but it will be interesting to see how it actually changes behaviour. Economically, the incentives still don't align towards manual voting.
The CLRC seems to add little value, but again hammers small earning accounts / new accounts as well as comment engagement. The combination impact of the HF21 changes on such small earners is very large. This could be mitigated to some extent by removing the CLRC change from HF21.
There is more to it than that. An enormous portion of the reward pool is being milked out by self-voting and vote selling. Even a partial counter of that will increase the value paid out in STEEM per vshare. That also offsets the lower vshares per rshares at the low level of the curve resulting in higher rate of STEEM payout for those fewer vshares at the low end, even if no large stakeholder comes along and votes.
There are too many moving parts to do a simple calculation of payout for a particular vote assuming all else is equal and expect that to be remotely valid. It isn't.
It's true that significant use of downvotes on bad actors would cause an upscaling of rewards on all other content. It's something I should have added into my estimates. However the impact of the SPS / 50/50 and CLRC all act in the opposite direction and those impacts will dominate heavily for small earning posts.
Here I would respectfully disagree. Most of the proposed changes have clear and measurable impacts and getting an initial assessment prior to behavioural changes is useful and a pretty solid starting point. People can then judge how they think behaviour will change those figures.
We can respectfully agree to disagree. A large portion of (in fact nearly the entirety of) the intent of this is to significantly change behavior. So I don't think that an assessment prior to behavioral changes is a solid starting point in the sense of being a good estimate of the outcomes. It literally can be a 'starting point' in the sense that one can start there and then make large adjustments to get from there to a good estimate, which is what I am pointing out.
It is also quite possible IMO that EIP is a complete failure in the sense that there aren't major behavioral changes, but that's somewhat of a different claim to make.
You keep on joining the others in supporting downvotes, as if the downvoters were enrolled from the most altruistic and genuine Steemit posters.
In truth?
Most of them downvote where they can, without caring who they damage or why. I've seen many posters who have their own YT or blog page outside of Steemit, who provide their articles here so as to widen their coverage...but then the 'nasties' come after them, downvoting them to invisibility...and even their comments show how vicious and evil-minded they are - just check those on this comment page and you'll see what I mean.
Steemit is handing over power to the most evil of those here....and that will bring about success for us?
How sad that even those with good intentions keep themselves blinkered.
Of the three changes in the EIP the free downvotes allocation is by far the most powerful and the only one that really has the potential to move the dial on behaviour significantly.
I would agree that there is the potential for issues, in particular an increase in toxicity and account targeting, as well as problems with cheap purchased downvotes, and I would have liked to have seen a lot more work on how such issues could be worked around.
But something does need to change. The economy of the content side of Steem is broken. Downvotes are worth the experiment in my view.
"because selling SP to bit bots is just the easiest way to earn. With 50/50 it will no longer be that simple", You are wrong, making quality content is best way to earn. This is simply communism taken to the next level, take from the real content creators. This will only piss off the true content creators, you can't build a functional Blockchain on sand, where no investments are in content creators and all the power is in random stake holders
In practice there will be more downvotes as there will be a downvoting pool which means less money to bad actors and more money for legit ones. Also bidbots will be less profitable. And the 50/50 curation split means it's now much more worth to curate content than before. So people should move away from bidbots and get back to normal curations.
Ultimately if everything goes well the space should improve a lot and your earnings with it. Would you rather earn 10 steem worth 0.40 cents or 4 steem worth 2$ ?
In the end the value of the coin in terms of market cap will have to be backed up by the value of the content platform, and quite frankly, without somehow onboarding top content creators who now reside on ad revenue sharing platforms, that value isn't going to be all that high. In fact the EIP in its current form is more likely to work against onboarding than for it.
New accounts are going to get screwed over badly by the EIP, what means you will need to be out of your mind even if earning just $20 or $30 a month on ad revenue sharing platforms to move to STEEM after HF21. That's not good, and on the long term that is more likely to push STEEM doen to 0.04 than to keep it at 0.40 or help it grow to 4.00.
While I agree with you on the earning sides, I don't think it will push people away as we'll see a much more sane environment where new users can actually thrive and not be like "most of the sp is in bidbot so I'm not earning anything"
But most of the EIP in fact favours growth of the bid bot economy. Just run a little simulation with a few weeks of old data. The narrative and the actual incentives created by the EIP do t actually match. That is, not unless there is a major shift in how the community considers flagging bid bot users indiscriminately.
Have a look at this poll and it's results to get a grasp of the general reluctance towards using flags (that way).
That method is completely invalid since the entire purpose is to change behavior.
That is exactly why simulation is essential. It shows who ends up getting incentives to change behaviour, and what alternatives of behavior are available.
I really hope HF20 has shown and thought us the dangers of ommitting propper "real data" simulations on a hard fork.
But will Steem increase in price because of this?
Steem is 70 in market cap and not many people care about it or know about it.
If nothing changes creators just lose rewards. That is what i fear. :(
I know i could stand on top my head and play violin upside down hanging by my legs from ceiling and i wouldnt get more votes. (haha that is some circus act)
Why think anyone outside steem will notice what we changed and decide to invest?
The reduction from the SPS (10%) and the 50/50 (33%) combine to 40% when taken together. This will be the base reduction applying to all posts before taking the CLRC into account.
For the CLRC, if your post earns more than a certain amount (16 Steem, i.e. $6.40 - according to the figure in the original post, although I'm still to run the figures on this) then you will be hitting linear and 40% will be the reduction. If you earn more than this break-even level then you will get a slight raise (i.e. less than a 40% reduction), as the reductions made by the CLRC on small value posts will end up being spread over larger value posts.
Better Blockchains that are 100% focused on content creators will be out in 1-2 years ;)
SEC cracking down hard, good luck with liquidity when binance shuts down in sept for USA .