RE: Steemit is not decentralized and it's causing a retention problem. Why not give some power to the people that earn it? Here's my suggestion.
While the centralization of power is an issue for Steemit currently, the power will decentralize over time. We are still in the very early stages of Steemit, and right now the 'whales' are mostly looking to promote people and content that will help the platform improve. If we were 10 days away from the "mainstream launch" and we had the same distribution problem - I would agree with you 100%. Seeing that we are still in beta though, and from what I understand - still a ways away from going mainstream - it is a lot less of an issue.
I do like that you are proposing a constructive solution to the problem though.
There are a few issues with it though:
- To change the rules and take away power from the existing SP holders, and give it to a new set of people is a violation of the blockchain 'contract'. Many of the people who have a lot of SP today - have it because they invested heavily (time, money, resources, etc.) during the very early stages of the Steem blockchain in order to make it successful. They did so under the understanding that the SP the earned would give them influence in the site.
- If there was a monetary incentive for having a high reputation, users would abuse the system and create lots of bot accounts with a high reputation.
Curation guilds (at a blockchain level, not at the community organized level) do have the possibility of addressing this. If a whale has the ability to delegate a portion of their voting power to a curation guild, and the guild members (through voting) can earn a portion of the curation rewards - then it essentially provides a way for whales to 'give away' some of their voting power + influence, along with the rewards - while still maintaining the original 'contract' that says they ultimately get to chose how to use their influence. (If they chose to delegate it - then that is still 'allowed'.)
There are many people in the community though that are thinking long and hard about this problem. Pretty much everyone realizes that the situation we have today is not going to be acceptable in order to go mainstream and attract billions of users. Things do have to change.
@dantheman did mention in a comment a few weeks back that they have ideas to address the issue. I don't know what to expect as far as their roadmap, but it will be interesting to see if anything on there will help.
The problem with allowing this issue to continue to fester is that Steemit's reputation is very low right now among the people who have come and gone. Reputations can make or break a site very quickly. It's like having an STD: even if you go to the doctor to get your sores treated, everyone will remember that you have a nasty STD. The sooner this issue is addressed and fixed, the better. Waiting would be a mistake....
The urgency depends on where we are as far as ready to go mainstream. If we are (hypothetically) not planning to scale to billions of users for another 2-3 years, then we have 2-3 years to solve the distribution problem.
I'm not saying it is not something that needs to be resolved, or arguing with the fact that it is harming the user experience and retention in the meantime.
How we ultimately solve it is going to be very important though. IMO, it is more important that we do it 'right' than 'quick'.
I could not agree more - try to get it right with consideration all ways round rather than get it wrong quickly. There is always the other side of that coin which is that if you make a decision which turns out a bit wrong, just make another decision.
In this context though, two things spring to mind: a few bad decisions have been made and no follow-up decision has been made. Where is the policy unit? Where is the decision making process run from and how can one make representations?
Secondly, 2-3 years away is a timescale which I would refer to as being [you know me @timcliff] the sort of approach considered to be slovenly by an exercise-averse sloth!
Blockchain years are the new silicon chip years!
Other considerations: if anyone expects to have a return on time invested, where do I fill out my time sheet?
If anyone expects special treatment for what they do, I do too!
There are some very perverse perspectives about time, investment etc. Caveat Emptor. Or, as the TV stations should say more often, if you do not like it, watch another channel!
Some good points raised here. It's tough to be patient but if we keep plugging away and enjoy ourselves we might be suprised where it will take us.
@kus-knee (The Old Dog)
Agreed.
@kus-knee exactly - enjoy the ride
we didn't have equal shares and some had more investments here - I don't see why they shouldn't have more of the VP at least I think so I let go of this a long time ago
Just write our asses off and focus on to making this platform big be grateful we got invited to their party and like you said have fun
Agreed.
I don't know how guilds at the blockchain level would work. How would whales share their posting keys without people abusing it and how would the power be split equally among all participants ( that would also break the contract btw) A trustless guild would solve a lot of problem but is it technically doable?
What I have in my head is just an idea / proposal, but it could be done. If it were done at the blockchain level, then there would be no need to share keys. The whales could allocate power voting to the guild, and then the blockchain could automatically distribute the SP based on the votes of the guild members. There are a lot of details to iron out though. It will be interesting to see if anything along these lines is in the upcoming roadmap.
I didn't know voting power was transferable this way , is it really?
That would mean whales would have to vote to the guild every 24 hours right? They could probably set up a bot to do it.
What will be the incentives for whales to allocate their voting power since they could earn curation rewards with a bot?
It is not something that is supported currently. It would require a change to the blockchain to add the curation guild functionality.
There are a lot of implementation details that would need to be ironed out. I suspect that if they did it, the SP would be allocated to the guild unless/until the whale decided to unallocate it.
One reason would be that a good curation guild could potentially earn better curation rewards than a "dumb bot". Also, whales could support guilds that were voting on the type of content that they felt was advancing the platform - without having to acutely curate and read all of the posts themselves.
I would say bots are a lot smarter than manual curators. Most people have no idea about the 30 min rules for example. Every bots knows about it.
Also bots can upvote much faster so they always outpace manual curators. If you look at the curation rank, all the top curators are bots.
I've subscribed to biophil's bot and everytime I vote manually it reduces my score, I need to let the bot do the work if I want to keep the same curation score. The only way manual curators can earn more than bots is if a really great post from a new author is only noticed late by the community( which is very rare). Manual curators stand no chance against bots.
If curators of a guilds are bots too then whales will just chose guilds with best curation score or as you say guilds voting for specific stuff
Replying here.
Bots have a lot of advantages over humans, but there are a lot of things that smart human curators can do better than the bots that exist today. Especially if the humans band together in teams/guilds and work together rather than individually.
The bot vs. human competition will be a fun thing to watch over the coming years :)
Thanks for the feedback! Good points too, however, I think the whales would still retain plenty of influence, but the people would who have put in time and effort as well would finally have some influence as well. And I don't think it would be easy enough to get a lot of bot accounts to that high of a reputation. If it is, then the reputation system is flawed and would need fixing.
Unfortunately, it is still a violation of the contract / agreement that was made with the existing SP holders.
I would probably put myself in that category. I've put a lot of time and effort into the site and community since I have joined in July. I have 27 MV of Steem Power now. It is nowhere near 'whale' status yet, but I have a lot more influence today than when I joined. Getting to whale status, as well as bringing the site to the point that my 27 MV are worth millions are two things that keep me going ;)
You underestimate people's ability to game the system :) The current reputation system is flawed, and it would need major fixing if it were to be used for that type of purpose. Just as one example - I believe a user like @blocktrades can upvote a new user's post, and they will instantly jump from 25 to around 50. [Edit] It was really designed with a specific purpose in mind - to deal with spam and abuse issues. For what it was designed for - it is not perfect, but it handles things fairly well.
It's all too easy for those without to want what those with have. It's the politics of envy. Breaking the "social contract" and taking any of the properly earned rewards to distribute to others is socialisitic. Sure it also accomplishes decentralization but at the expense of a broken promise and platform reputation.
I'm only a minor minnow who might benefit from the distribution that @richardcrill suggests, but I'm still opposed to a redistribution that robs those who earned what they have. I'm opposed on principle.
As to solutions I have none to offer. Perhaps b/c I don't understand how or why the imbalance of power came to be. Perhaps the size and scope of some peoples holdings is far to large for me to fathom (if 27 MV is 27 million vests and each is worth $0.16 that's over $4 MILLION) in relation to the entire ecosystem.
The solution to the problem may be beyond my paygrade to resolve or even comprehend but I definitely know the difference between right and wrong and theft is always wrong. There's got to be a better solution.
Very well said!
I completely agree with your reasoning for being against it. Even if it is better for the site, community, and user retention - if it violates the existing contract, then it is not right (IMO).
As far as the initial distribution, many of the whales were the ones that worked on the code, or hosted the servers, or did other various things to create the infrastructure to create/run the blockchain in the early days. Some others invested a lot.
The distribution is not quite that bad. MVests is kind of a wired unit. My 27 MVests is about 13,000 STEEM. @ned's account - which is pretty much the largest, has about 5.7 million STEEM. One day I hope to be like @ned :)
Great answers, Tim.
I'll add that, generally speaking, the people who make such proposals have much to gain and nothing to lose. The idea that the platform will win is spurious, at best.
If someone bought APPL in 2000, the people who bought in 2015 don't cry that it's not fair. They recognize that they got in the game later. Folks in Steemit need to recignize the same thing. I missed the early boat and got in as the celebrity wave was rising. My major investments have been all the way from about $1.50 to the bottom. If I'd waited to invest until now, I'd have a few times my current SP. But I have what I have and I'm confident that it'll grow. I've earned and invested in it. I have more voting power because of it. Will that be adjusted (up or down?) because someone thinks it's not fair?
I'm sorry. I'm uninformed here. How exactly would it violate the contract?
Every single person that has SP today (no matter what the amount or when it was acquired) earned/bought that SP under the premise that the SP would give them influence over the site's rewards pool. There are people that invested heavily early on specifically so they would get that power. If the rules were changed such that your SP only gave you power over 75% of the reward pool - then it is violating the agreement with everyone who currently has SP.
Imagine you were founding a startup company, and you got 5 venture capitalists to invest in your company. You formed an agreement with each of them that they would provide services/funds in exchange for 10% control of the company (each). Then a year later after the company started to grow, you decided to say well, actually - we are only going to give you each 7.5% control now. We want to take the other 2.5% and give it to our employees, so that they have a say in the way things are done as well. That would be a violation of the contract that you formed with the original shareholders.
[Edit] Updated the numbers of the example to better line up with the percentages in your proposal.
Thats exactly why I have bought and earned SP and I still have no real influence or any real hope of getting any under the current system.
I am not saying that the fact you cannot easily acquire influence right now is not a problem. I agree it is a problem.
There is a huge difference though between your issue though (you did not get as much influence as you had hoped/wanted/expected) and a violation of contract.
Any SP that you bought and earned is following the rules of the blockchain. You may have thought/hoped/expected that it would give you more influence than it did - but that is not a breach of contract. The blockchain is still following the same rules for you that it does for everyone else, which is that you have a stake-weighted influence in the rewards pool, based on the amount of your vested shares compared to the total.
"There are many people in the community though that are thinking long and hard about this problem."
That's the part that gives me faith in this platform even with its flaws! Great post OP!
What do you think about my related idea of "hindsight rewards"? Would you consider it something that violated this agreement?
https://steemit.com/steemit/@hilarski/steemit-referral-program-and-incentives#@the-ego-is-you/re-hilarski-steemit-referral-program-and-incentives-20161224t190500192z
Also, can we get something straight... are we talking about an actual verbal agreement, an expectation or a "social contract" (popular perception, in some cases used as a BS argument for real world conscription)?
It's a really interesting idea, and I am not opposed to it.
The biggest challenge is that something like that would be really difficult to implement at a blockchain level. Someone really smart would need to spend a lot of time and effort in order to figure out how to make it work.
Also, there would be ways for malicious users to game the system by creating and posting from new accounts.
They are not mutually exclusive ideas, but personally I would rather see an actual referral program.
That is a really great question!
It is definitely not a full blown contract in the legal sense. It is closer to a social agreement. Nobody ever said that the blockchain rules wouldn't change.
That said though - people who invest in a crypto coin like BTC or STEEM are doing so with the understanding that the blockchain code works a certain way, and follows certain rules. To change the rules means that the people who bought the 'product' no longer have what they paid for. It is a violation in that sense.
There are two problems with changes like this: