RE: Proposing Steem Equality 0.19.0 as the Next Fork
Increase Each Vote's Impact
We want to change the voting power reserve rate to allow voters to spend more of their voting power in a single vote. You will be able to concentrate your influence with fewer votes while still being able to spread it out if you choose. Currently, you are limited to using 1/200th of your remaining voting power in a single vote. We want to increase this somewhere between 4-10x per vote.
This is a bad idea. A lot more stake will end up being used by users to vote for themselves. Engagement/curation will be discouraged and votes will be more concentrated. We already have enough groups upvoting each other, this is going to make it even worse.
Is there any statistics on what the self-voting percentage is? If not I suggest we calculate it before implementing any new feature. I can guarantee that increasing the power of each vote will increase self-voting a lot in term of the stake used to self-vote.
I also don't like the idea that users who are not active would be able to use all their power without much involvement in the platform. Active users should be able to benefit from users who are inactive and do not use their voting power.
It's not a bad idea. There is much voting power unused by human curators while bots are fully utilizing it. Increasing each vote's impact will reduce the gap between human and bots. If one is doing both manual and bot curation, one may decrease a proportion of bot curation for keeping manual curation power (just my 2 cents)
Active users have no disadvantages compared to bots, but that's not even the problem.
The whole point of steem is to reward others with your voting power, if you make it easier for users to upvote themselves the platform loses value.
I was the first one to say that the curve was a non issue for self voting and that it doesn't prevent self-voting. However this feature to give a single vote more power will definetely encourage self-voting, the fact that it takes a lot of post to use your power is the best protection against self voting.
If you have a blockchain where everyone upvote themselves it becomes worthless and that's what a lot of people will do if this new change is implemented.
I generally agree with you, but have some different thoughts. To explain, I need to refine two points of your statement "the whole point of steem is to reward others with your voting power".
So, in my words, "the point of Steem is to spend community money on contents, which are perceived to potentially generate values for the community, via collaborative decision making process with voting power."
Back to self voting, I think self-voting can be cast if an author evaluates his/her content worth to be rewarded. There is no reason to exclude the author from the evaluation process, since he/she is also a stakeholder of Steem.
However, the problem of superlinearity is when one has very big voting power, which is greater than average upvotes(in VESTS) of all other posts. In this case, the self-voter can earn more than his/her stake shares. Smart bots also follow this large voter while other minnows feel disappointed. Consequently, collaborative decision making process is hindered.
In the linear system, everyone's vote will be treated in equal weights, regardless of being whale or minnow, and this will facilitate collaborative decision making process. There can be some more self upvoters, but I think it is okay if they think their posts are worth to get it. Surely, others can downvote if they think the posts are overvalued.
The key for Steem is collaboration. Equality in vote and weakened bots influence are good move IMHO.
If there is a proposal to allow people to use all their power in a single vote, would you be in favor ? If not why?
I am for it, but not in a "single vote" form. I'd rather want to see "point-based" vote, as suggested in https://steemit.com/brainstrom/@clayop/brainstroming-new-design-for-voting-power
I'm sorry to say but if you are for it ( in whatever form) then you don't understand the implication . If people can use full power in 1 single vote they will write one post per day and give all the money to themselves.
The fact that currently users need to upvote 200 post to use their full power is what protects the whole system against self-voting.
Small clarification here: You currently only need to upvote 40 posts per day. It is 200, but over a 5-day recharge period. The proposal is to reduce that somewhat. I don't know what number would be used by 10 has been suggested.
I don't even think self-voting is all that bad anyway. Overall the linear curve makes the system a lot more like tipping. Assuming everyone voted, what your votes would be doing is assigning is a share of the redistribution of your own stake. So if you don't see anything going on that you believe adds enough value to want to redistribute your stake, then as far as I'm concerned go ahead and keep it. Let people bring more value or make a more compelling presentation if they want to earn, rather than constant shitposts just because, well, something has to get the money. No it doesn't.
I think that's incorrect. I did a test yesterday and upvoted 65 times ( full power) and my upvoting power went from 100% to 72% and got fully recharged when i woke up 12 hours later.
You are missing another important point. What you said can happen but it cannot always regarding other's behaviors(downvote) too. The important point is that linearity makes others participation easier and reducing bot effects.
Nobody is going to waste their voting power to downvote random people that upvoted their own work and even if they did that's not the kind of system we want to promote where everyone downvote because everyone upvote themselves. It creates a very toxic atmosphere. Linearity has very little to do with self-voting, I have explained multiple times how the curve does nothing to prevent self voting.
The problem you want to solve is a non issue, hardly no one has ever complained about bots having supposedly and edge over manual curator, however if the single vote limit is increased then we create a self-voting and vote concentration problem which will discourage curators and users to diversify their votes and vote for other content than theirs.
@berniesanders mocks people for being sexually abused when they were children. Community remains silent.
You called it!