The current inflation rewards split is:
Content Rewards: 75%
SP Interest: 15%
Witness Rewards: 10%
SPS: 0
Proposed split based on polled witness median:
Content Rewards: 65%
SP Interest: 15%
Witness Rewards: 10%
SPS: 10%
Steemit inc would have proposed the following but are happy to go with the above witness poll:
Content Rewards: 67.5%
SP Interest: 13.5%
Witness: 10%
SPS: 9%
We earn interest on the SP we vest? I absolutely never knew that... Though, at only 1.8%, I can see why I didn't know that. That's worse than my savings account at my bank earns. While I am ok with a slight drop in author rewards, going from 75% to 50% is just not acceptable. That would put the author in a position where Steem would be the worst earning platform they could publish on. Apple is 70/30 and Amazon is... 80/20 (I think?). Now granted, I understand there is a very obvious difference between these platforms, but the point still stands. The principle behind this is bad, and the optics far worse.
@southernwolf, we are discussing that now, although the discussion is going in the direction of removing the SP interest altogether.
As a steem stake holder I second the proposal to remove the SP interest and allocating 2/3 of it to the SPS. I am not in favor of cutting the portion that is set aside for witness pay. Block producers are the last line of defence when it comes to perserving the integrity of the blockchain and we need as many backup witnesses as possible.
My prefered distribution is:
With this setup there is an additional incentive to hold steem power that has some game theory advantages. Over time it would diminish the influence of actors that are just here to extract value.
Ok, so here's my suggestion! Remove interest earning on SP, and use that to fund thinks like the SPS? Cause, I doubt anyone (except a few whales and witnesses) would miss that. That would leave author rewards untouched while still freeing up some funding. Then, if funding the SPS initially is successful using that, then the amount it is funded with could be increased by reducing the other sections. That way, it's a gradual shift, which allows the waters to be tested before we dive right in...
Regarding the proposed funding split of 65, 15, 10, 10, I would like to appeal to witnesses to reconsider this. firstly 10% to SPS is a bit high especially with all the talk around how it can be gamed, hence the 10 SBD submission fee etc. It is largely unproven so 7% might be a more prudent starting point, also @trafalgar and I really feel vesting interest should be reduced, and he asked who is fighting to keep that intact anyway? As I have said before, no external parties even know about it, even the latest indepth article about Steem on bravenewcoin.com didn't even mention vesting interest, the UI doesn't show it either so not sure what the point of it is from an investor attraction standpoint, there are always other delegation tools and markets that can earn you far in excess of 1.8% pa anyway.
I also think 1% reduction from the witnesses is a good PR move in solidarity with the community.
@southernwolf, yip supports my case exactly no one knows. Steemit Inc with their 60 mil Steem earn around 1 mill SP per year on 1.8% and dump at a rate of 800K per month :) they however they have been nice enough to suggest a drop to in SP interest, some other witnesses are fighting not to touch SP interest and reckon the rewards are the part that are being milked and should be reduced.
@ajayyy, Steemit Inc is donating 200K supposedly, so yes in the first year we have that buffer and could do 5% even, 3 to 4 sound low especially if Steem price drops further.
@ajayyy yeah that's right taking a small % from witness is a sign of good faith and unity, not witness vs community. I think it will be very bad public relations if witnesses don't stand with the community and take a hit as well.
I think it makes it hard for the small voters to see that their vote (their voice) matters, the idea and economics is fine, but the perception may not be.
For those who don't know, currently there is a 15min vote window (reduced from a prior 30 mins) within this window the curator earns zero curation at inception and steadily rises to 100% curation earned at 15mins. When it was 30 mins, the lost curation used to go to the author, currently it goes back to the rewards pool. This feature was meant to put bots and humans on equal footing, but rather served to add cognitive load for those in the know, all of a sudden they had to decide to wait to vote or just vote and lose curation if they didn't have time.
This feature is making UX terrible and for those who don't know about it, they just lose curation by voting earlier than 15 mins. With the advent of HF21 consensus witnesses have siezed the opportunity to change this at the 11th hour thanks to Steemit agreeing to implement the change if we can come to a quick decision, after a few hours of discussion, a decision was reached almost unanimously amoung the quorum poll. The figure arrived at was 1 minute and will be included in this change.
Steemit is however cautious on this matter and voiced concern bots would have additional advantage, however authors will also benefit from bots frontrunning curation because the bots help to bring the content out of superlinear into the linear realm. There are huge UX benefits and users won't feel like they are being robbed of curation if they vote too early and perhaps didn't even know there was a penalty.
If need be we can increase it again in the next HF, there are also other frontends like DTube that have instant curation with no penalties AFAIK and Steemit is fast losing ground to third party apps because it is too slow to innovate, this could be one positive step towards keeping up with the times and preparing for short form content on Steem like forums, Twitter, Instagram and chat type apps.
This is one of the proposed changes for HF21, the split is currently 75% Author / 25% Curator. Some say authors will benefit more due to the increased curation incentives away from self voting and delegating to bidbots, however will passive stakeholders really change their behaviour and bother to evaluate content? Is it possible to game this new system with multiple accounts ie author and curator accounts belonging to the same person, and what about the issue of making Steem a place of back door deals and begging whales for votes rather than just paying to promote your own content?
Some businesses and apps may be affected, especially if they are fundraising platforms like Fundition and Utopian. Publishing houses will find it more difficult to setup shop on Steem because they have less share of rewards to give to their writers, it also affects frontends that rely on beneficiary rewards.
Looking forward to your thoughts for and against the 50/50 split.
I'm absolutely against a 50/50 split. It won't magically increase the price. It won't make whales vote more for the average user.
Who will profit?
Whales
Already famous authors, because they get high votes and everyone wants a piece of that if possible
I actually count myself to the second group. I'd likely benefit from a 50/50 split, due to people seeing me as a good target to earn (which is a perverted way to look at content creators).
Who will heavily suffer is the average user, who's already earning below a dollar per post. That dollar will be cut in two, and it's likely that the post won't even be voted because there's not enough curation to snipe.
This is another step away from content, the one thing that really differentiates Steem from most other blockchains. The reason many users even came here.
I know many don't see a value in content. I know many think that those who invested money should be rewarded more. But you're forgetting that without content, there's no reward either.
Exactly. I love seeing the "before you go saying this will only / mostly benefit whales..." preface to posts defending the 50/50 split. If you have to go prefacing your changes with that kind of rhetoric, you are the problem.
Thank you for getting this started @thecryptodrive. There has been a lot of discussion bot in posts and in some of the discords. The topic was kicked around at the monthly Witness Chat last Wednesday.
Unfortunately there was a lock of top 20 witnesses present to hear their views on the changes. The general consensus I heard was that most folks want to see the SPS. They want to see it funded effectively but not through hitting one area of the inflation pool. We all should carry the effort.
I heard almost no support for the idea of the 50/50 split. Most people don't believe it will change any current behaviour and will serve to discourage content creators. Some forget that content creation takes many forms, not just blogging. We are creating content in conversing here for example.
The downvote pool did generate a diversity of views. Some felt it would invite more flag wars, some thought it could be of some benefit. Others thought it would not make a big difference either way, they would be unlikely to use it any more than now as there would still be a retaliation mentality.
I'll mention this forum to others and see if we can get some conversation going.
Is it possible to game this new system with multiple accounts ie author and curator accounts belonging to the same person, and what about the issue of making Steem a place of back door deals and begging whales for votes rather than just paying to promote your own content?
This is already possible in the current enviornment, so it is a none issue. "Back door deals" is just another way of paying for votes not very different from promotion services from an economic standpoint.
Some businesses and apps may be affected, especially if they are fundraising platforms like Fundition and Utopian. Publishing houses will find it more difficult to setup shop on Steem because they have less share of rewards to give to their writers, it also affects frontends that rely on beneficiary rewards.
This is a legitimate argument against the 50/50 split. How many businesses are currently built around the 75/25 structure? From that list how many of them create demand for steem (in a way that can be measured) and are not just here to milk the reward pool?
I am for the EIP as a whole from a game theory perspective. You cannot isolate the 50/50 split from the other components of the proposal.
The proposed curve is an economic incentive that mitigates sybil attacks from botnets that utilize small accounts to milk the reward pool.
The free downvote portion provides an additional tool to combat abuse.
The 50/50 split removes incentives from posting in favor of voting. If you combine this with the fact that holding SP gives you "interest" it makes spaming for self votes less attractive instead of going down the path of least resistance (voting for rewards).
If some big accounts start to use the "free" downvotes to counter the most notorious self voters that abuse the system it will leave more rewards for legitimate users (which would mitigate the reduction in author rewards from 75/25 to 50/50). In my opinion that would be the most important test to gauge the effectiveness of the EIP (if approved).
Some businesses and apps may be affected, especially if they are fundraising platforms like Fundition and Utopian. Publishing houses will find it more difficult to setup shop on Steem because they have less share of rewards to give to their writers, it also affects frontends that rely on beneficiary rewards.
For example, with Utopian, they always end up voting last due to how thourough the review system works. A 50/50 split would lower the amount of reward going to the contributor and instead distribute it soley to the people who votes right before the large utopian vote. This could lead to people just setting up bots to vote on posts they know will receive a large vote later such as these.
I think we have to be pretty realistic about this. There is always going to be a way to abuse the system, and in crypto the whales are always going to be able to make much more money than the average normal user.
What we have to see is that the system we currently have is obviously broken.
Most of the value of the votes come from the voting bots, there is relentless self vote farming especially on low value levels to disguise it, and, I'm sure, no one finds the current system fair at all.
There is not going to be a perfect system, but the only way to find a solution is through trial and error.
This could lead to people just setting up bots to vote on posts they know will receive a large vote later such as these.
I agree, one of my concerns is the pile-on effect by users that won't know better about the changes to the linear curve as likely the frontend won't show anything about that. Centralisation of curation might be a negative side effect, I remember the old days where everyone used to just vote sirwinchester because he was gauranteed to have many voters so his posts were a no-brainer to earn good curation by front-running the rest, not saying his posts weren't of value, he made some good public contributions to Steem, just showing the mindset, even the media spoke of the pile-on effect of voting when Steem was new.
If some big accounts start to use the "free" downvotes to counter the most notorious self voters that abuse the system it will leave more rewards for legitimate users (which would mitigate the reduction in author rewards from 75/25 to 50/50). In my opinion that would be the most important test to gauge the effectiveness of the EIP (if approved).
@onthewayout from what I can tell most big accounts are very passive and too busy with other things to bother, one major component missing from the HF is the ability to delegate the free downvotes, but this can be mitigated with tools with posting authority, BuildTeam might release such a tool into Steemvoter.
@shadowspub thanks for engaging and offering to bring people here to discuss further, I am very much in your camp in terms of the 50/50, I'm not sold on it due to the negative perception, it might help the economics overall but the average user doesn't understand economics and only understand that they are doing the content creation work and losing half the value.
I am not so enthusiastic about the 50/50 so not going to argue with you, but do have some comments on some of the suggestions, all are good but there are some caveats.
External users on Twitter, Reddit, etc won't really understand the Steem economy well enough to effectively suggest what will be good for Steem and will just add additional noise pollution and trolling that will undermine the decision making process.
Testing on another user interface won't give the desired behavioural results, people won't try game or bot a testnet token, Steemit inc will launch a testnet prior to the HF and there will likely be a condenser (Steemit.com) testnet interface with it, but since the rewards won't be real you can't gauge true economic effect, you can only see how it works in practice.
Regarding incremental HF's rather than an omnibus like this one, I was once a proponent for the incremental approach however it was highlighted to me that HF's are very disruptive for exchanges and too frequent could lead to wallet downtimes and even delisting if costs to maintain are too high, also each HF is costly development wise in terms of packaging, deployment and co-ordination.
All other points you make above however are valid, I especially like the point about bad actors hiding in the shadows, it is much harder to detect bad curators raping the rewards pool with multiple curation accounts voting their circle of writers than it is to detect a single user abusing author rewards.
The point of the above is to include as much of the community as possible in the process and reduce the amount of chaos on the main network.
This forum is meant to be exactly that, a place where the public can engage with witnesses and stakeholders in a place where the discussion is always visible and referenceable. It is a compromise between traditional Steem blog posting and the public Twitter/Reddit discussions you propose above.
@raycoms I agree there will need to be some sort of iterative trial and error, this is all new ground. I also agree that wide consultation is also wise, even if external economists were brought in, even if in the very least just as a show that due diligence was performed before letting the changes loose, Block.one would likely do something corporate like that, maybe they even did. :)
A last minute addition to the HF was added to increase custom json from 1 to 5 per block, this will greatly help apps that use custom json. It was limited to 1 previously when there were no RC's to limit spam, it is safe to increase the limit now that RC's exist to regulate it, also each custom json can only be a max of 2048 bytes in size as regulated by Jussi and 8192 bytes as a blockchain hard limit.
The SPS or Steem Proposal System is going to be a worker proposal system where developers, marketers and project owners can submit requests for funding for the furtherance of the Steem ecosystem. This will bring alot of external project to Steem in search of funding where they perhaps can't easily get elsewhere and one of those apps could be the killer app we need to catapault Steem to the moon.
There remains however a contentious issue of how it will be funded, allegedly Steemit Inc will fund 200K STEEM to kick it off, there was chatter that it was supposed to be more or that that may give more over time, but so far they are only commiting to 200K. The reliance on donations is not sustainable so inflation funding has been suggested for long-term sustainability.
Not everyone agrees on how inflation funding should happen here are some of the scenarios:
New Inflation source - None of the existing sources will be touched, a new source will be created but this means that the annual inflalation will increase and more token issuance will occur to flood the market.
Take a bit from all existing sources - I am a fan of this route, it simply is good PR, gives the feeling of Ubuntu - "togetherness and community" and that we are all in this together. I think this will be the softest and most diplomatic approach.
Take from author rewards only - Some people are proponents that author rewards take the most value away from Steem in return for low quality content being produced.
Which camp are you in? Feel free to discuss on this thread.
For public reference there is currently discussion about a testnet being released soon and a tentative HF date being proposed for the 6th of August 2019, giving exchanges 30 days notice from the 6th of July.
Isn't it kinda risky giving notice to exchanges that early in advance? Considering that a sucessful fork depends on 17/20 witnesses adopting the new software. If a HF failed, wouldn't that really mess with exchanges that were expecting a HF at that date and time?
I believe there will be someone on hand all the time from Steemit.com liaising with the exchanges. I'm sure there will be a bit of exchange downtime but it will be managed, just giving them the heads up early to expect the change.
@southernwolf, I have received better info from @smooth regarding how forks work with exchanges:
The way this works with most blockchain projects, most if not all of which are fundamentally experimental in some sense, is the devs tag a release and exchanges are advised to upgrade right at that point, which means 30 days notice to exchanges starts from the tag. Even if the fork ends up not activating, then assuming competent devs, there should be no ill effects from running the new release (and it may indeed have some beneficial non-fork bug fixes or improvements).
From @smooth: To clarify though, tagged release is different from tagged release candidate. Until there is a release (which means release candidate has been available sufficiently for public testing including a public testnet), Once that process is complete then you get an actual tagged release.
...upgrading just means that your node will switch over if the fork activates, but otherwise it will still continue functioning normally. By contrast if you don't upgrade and the fork does activate, your node will halt. Or to put it another way, under normal conditions there isn't ever a reason to not upgrade a non-witness node (abnormal conditions would include there being multiple competing forks and then it might not be clear what to upgrade to).
Testnet is up - running branch testnet-20190628. There will be another tagged release candidate next week which will include the change to the 15 minute reverse auction to 1 minute.
@southernwolf yeah it will be public, I'm sure there will be a condenser (steemit.com) frontend to play on. Will keep you updated here when I know more.
The testnet is up at testnet.steemitdev.com, p2p is open on 2001 as usual. The HF date for the testnet is tomorrow at 1pm EDT. The chain id is 46d82ab7d8db682eb1959aed0ada039a6d49afa1602491f93dde9cac3e8e6c32. All accounts are imported from the mainnet, and new transactions from the mainnet are mirrored on the testnet.
This is to be part of the EIP, basically means that small votes won't have as much effect until it reaches a certain value, I think a Steemitblog post mentioned that value to be 16 STEEM, thereafter the rewards become linear again. This is said to be for the purpose dissincentivising whales from using multiple accounts to game the curation rewards, however quite a few have enough power to instantly hit 16 STEEM worth of post reward value so am still trying to wrap my head around it.
The proposed formula I believe is:
result = ( ( rshares + s ) * ( rshares + s ) - s * s ) / ( rshares + 4 * s );
Some concerns exist about disinfranchising the smaller voters with this proposal and will kill off microvoting amongst minnows.
Would like to hear some feedback from the community in this regard.
My bet is on debacle, but I base that on prior results.
Rc credits was a good thing.
Maybe this will be, too.
The test will be in how quick the exploits are forked out of this fork.
I know forks are hated by exchanges, but good customer service (rofl) could mitigate that.
Stinc is better known for running customers off.
@freeborangel your reply worked, I think alot of things need to be tried and iterated, only by trying do you really know, I mean Steem is so down the dumps already, I suppose what is the worst that can happen? You learn more from failures than wins.
Topic: SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
The current inflation rewards split is:
Content Rewards: 75%
SP Interest: 15%
Witness Rewards: 10%
SPS: 0
Proposed split based on polled witness median:
Content Rewards: 65%
SP Interest: 15%
Witness Rewards: 10%
SPS: 10%
Steemit inc would have proposed the following but are happy to go with the above witness poll:
Content Rewards: 67.5%
SP Interest: 13.5%
Witness: 10%
SPS: 9%
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
We earn interest on the SP we vest? I absolutely never knew that... Though, at only 1.8%, I can see why I didn't know that. That's worse than my savings account at my bank earns. While I am ok with a slight drop in author rewards, going from 75% to 50% is just not acceptable. That would put the author in a position where Steem would be the worst earning platform they could publish on. Apple is 70/30 and Amazon is... 80/20 (I think?). Now granted, I understand there is a very obvious difference between these platforms, but the point still stands. The principle behind this is bad, and the optics far worse.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
Even 7% is very high, something like 3% or 4% would be more resonable in my opinion.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
A few people on another post have liked this idea:
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
As a steem stake holder I second the proposal to remove the SP interest and allocating 2/3 of it to the SPS. I am not in favor of cutting the portion that is set aside for witness pay. Block producers are the last line of defence when it comes to perserving the integrity of the blockchain and we need as many backup witnesses as possible.
My prefered distribution is:
With this setup there is an additional incentive to hold steem power that has some game theory advantages. Over time it would diminish the influence of actors that are just here to extract value.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
This is probaly a good reason not to reduce staking interest, the external media already sees us as the lowest POS/DPOS interest currency: https://neosteem.com/topics/thecryptodrive/tokenbb-topic-steem-compared-to-tezos-on-staki-1561429261165
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
Ok, so here's my suggestion! Remove interest earning on SP, and use that to fund thinks like the SPS? Cause, I doubt anyone (except a few whales and witnesses) would miss that. That would leave author rewards untouched while still freeing up some funding. Then, if funding the SPS initially is successful using that, then the amount it is funded with could be increased by reducing the other sections. That way, it's a gradual shift, which allows the waters to be tested before we dive right in...
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
@onthewayout thanks for the feedback, I will convey that internally.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
Personally I would drop 1% from witness as well in a show of solidarity.
I would also reduce interest by 1%, both of these reductions will make content rewards 69.5% and leave SPS at 9% until it has proven itself more.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
Regarding the proposed funding split of 65, 15, 10, 10, I would like to appeal to witnesses to reconsider this. firstly 10% to SPS is a bit high especially with all the talk around how it can be gamed, hence the 10 SBD submission fee etc. It is largely unproven so 7% might be a more prudent starting point, also @trafalgar and I really feel vesting interest should be reduced, and he asked who is fighting to keep that intact anyway? As I have said before, no external parties even know about it, even the latest indepth article about Steem on bravenewcoin.com didn't even mention vesting interest, the UI doesn't show it either so not sure what the point of it is from an investor attraction standpoint, there are always other delegation tools and markets that can earn you far in excess of 1.8% pa anyway.
I also think 1% reduction from the witnesses is a good PR move in solidarity with the community.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
@southernwolf, yip supports my case exactly no one knows. Steemit Inc with their 60 mil Steem earn around 1 mill SP per year on 1.8% and dump at a rate of 800K per month :) they however they have been nice enough to suggest a drop to in SP interest, some other witnesses are fighting not to touch SP interest and reckon the rewards are the part that are being milked and should be reduced.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
If you look at https://steemdb.com/ you can see the current splits:
Note that Curation + Authors + Commenters currently add up to ~75% Content Rewards.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
@southernwolf, we are discussing that now, although the discussion is going in the direction of removing the SP interest altogether.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
@ajayyy, Steemit Inc is donating 200K supposedly, so yes in the first year we have that buffer and could do 5% even, 3 to 4 sound low especially if Steem price drops further.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to SPS Inflation Funding Split Proposal
@ajayyy yeah that's right taking a small % from witness is a sign of good faith and unity, not witness vs community. I think it will be very bad public relations if witnesses don't stand with the community and take a hit as well.
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: Sublinear reward curve death knell of steem!
Placing my marker here.
Implementing a reward curve that exponentially decreases small votes will kill steem.
Maybe not totally dead, but undead for sure.
Having a bigger percentage of steem will be pointless if nobody wants any.
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to Sublinear reward curve death knell of steem!
I think it makes it hard for the small voters to see that their vote (their voice) matters, the idea and economics is fine, but the perception may not be.
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: Confirmed Changes to the Vote Window
For those who don't know, currently there is a 15min vote window (reduced from a prior 30 mins) within this window the curator earns zero curation at inception and steadily rises to 100% curation earned at 15mins. When it was 30 mins, the lost curation used to go to the author, currently it goes back to the rewards pool. This feature was meant to put bots and humans on equal footing, but rather served to add cognitive load for those in the know, all of a sudden they had to decide to wait to vote or just vote and lose curation if they didn't have time.
This feature is making UX terrible and for those who don't know about it, they just lose curation by voting earlier than 15 mins. With the advent of HF21 consensus witnesses have siezed the opportunity to change this at the 11th hour thanks to Steemit agreeing to implement the change if we can come to a quick decision, after a few hours of discussion, a decision was reached almost unanimously amoung the quorum poll. The figure arrived at was 1 minute and will be included in this change.
Steemit is however cautious on this matter and voiced concern bots would have additional advantage, however authors will also benefit from bots frontrunning curation because the bots help to bring the content out of superlinear into the linear realm. There are huge UX benefits and users won't feel like they are being robbed of curation if they vote too early and perhaps didn't even know there was a penalty.
If need be we can increase it again in the next HF, there are also other frontends like DTube that have instant curation with no penalties AFAIK and Steemit is fast losing ground to third party apps because it is too slow to innovate, this could be one positive step towards keeping up with the times and preparing for short form content on Steem like forums, Twitter, Instagram and chat type apps.
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to Confirmed Changes to the Vote Window
Thanks so much for this, really need to be shared cause it's an important change that will really matter if applied @thecryptodrive
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
This is one of the proposed changes for HF21, the split is currently 75% Author / 25% Curator. Some say authors will benefit more due to the increased curation incentives away from self voting and delegating to bidbots, however will passive stakeholders really change their behaviour and bother to evaluate content? Is it possible to game this new system with multiple accounts ie author and curator accounts belonging to the same person, and what about the issue of making Steem a place of back door deals and begging whales for votes rather than just paying to promote your own content?
Some businesses and apps may be affected, especially if they are fundraising platforms like Fundition and Utopian. Publishing houses will find it more difficult to setup shop on Steem because they have less share of rewards to give to their writers, it also affects frontends that rely on beneficiary rewards.
Looking forward to your thoughts for and against the 50/50 split.
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
Looks like I accidentally posted this twice. Deleting this thread.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
I'm absolutely against a 50/50 split. It won't magically increase the price. It won't make whales vote more for the average user.
Who will profit?
I actually count myself to the second group. I'd likely benefit from a 50/50 split, due to people seeing me as a good target to earn (which is a perverted way to look at content creators).
Who will heavily suffer is the average user, who's already earning below a dollar per post. That dollar will be cut in two, and it's likely that the post won't even be voted because there's not enough curation to snipe.
This is another step away from content, the one thing that really differentiates Steem from most other blockchains. The reason many users even came here.
I know many don't see a value in content. I know many think that those who invested money should be rewarded more. But you're forgetting that without content, there's no reward either.
Time to unearth an old meme:
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
@suesa
Exactly. I love seeing the "before you go saying this will only / mostly benefit whales..." preface to posts defending the 50/50 split. If you have to go prefacing your changes with that kind of rhetoric, you are the problem.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
Thank you for getting this started @thecryptodrive. There has been a lot of discussion bot in posts and in some of the discords. The topic was kicked around at the monthly Witness Chat last Wednesday.
Unfortunately there was a lock of top 20 witnesses present to hear their views on the changes. The general consensus I heard was that most folks want to see the SPS. They want to see it funded effectively but not through hitting one area of the inflation pool. We all should carry the effort.
I heard almost no support for the idea of the 50/50 split. Most people don't believe it will change any current behaviour and will serve to discourage content creators. Some forget that content creation takes many forms, not just blogging. We are creating content in conversing here for example.
The downvote pool did generate a diversity of views. Some felt it would invite more flag wars, some thought it could be of some benefit. Others thought it would not make a big difference either way, they would be unlikely to use it any more than now as there would still be a retaliation mentality.
I'll mention this forum to others and see if we can get some conversation going.
Shadows
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
This is already possible in the current enviornment, so it is a none issue. "Back door deals" is just another way of paying for votes not very different from promotion services from an economic standpoint.
This is a legitimate argument against the 50/50 split. How many businesses are currently built around the 75/25 structure? From that list how many of them create demand for steem (in a way that can be measured) and are not just here to milk the reward pool?
I am for the EIP as a whole from a game theory perspective. You cannot isolate the 50/50 split from the other components of the proposal.
If some big accounts start to use the "free" downvotes to counter the most notorious self voters that abuse the system it will leave more rewards for legitimate users (which would mitigate the reduction in author rewards from 75/25 to 50/50). In my opinion that would be the most important test to gauge the effectiveness of the EIP (if approved).
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
For example, with Utopian, they always end up voting last due to how thourough the review system works. A 50/50 split would lower the amount of reward going to the contributor and instead distribute it soley to the people who votes right before the large utopian vote. This could lead to people just setting up bots to vote on posts they know will receive a large vote later such as these.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
I think we have to be pretty realistic about this. There is always going to be a way to abuse the system, and in crypto the whales are always going to be able to make much more money than the average normal user.
What we have to see is that the system we currently have is obviously broken.
Most of the value of the votes come from the voting bots, there is relentless self vote farming especially on low value levels to disguise it, and, I'm sure, no one finds the current system fair at all.
There is not going to be a perfect system, but the only way to find a solution is through trial and error.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
@ajayyy, regarding your comment:
I agree, one of my concerns is the pile-on effect by users that won't know better about the changes to the linear curve as likely the frontend won't show anything about that. Centralisation of curation might be a negative side effect, I remember the old days where everyone used to just vote sirwinchester because he was gauranteed to have many voters so his posts were a no-brainer to earn good curation by front-running the rest, not saying his posts weren't of value, he made some good public contributions to Steem, just showing the mindset, even the media spoke of the pile-on effect of voting when Steem was new.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
@onthewayout from what I can tell most big accounts are very passive and too busy with other things to bother, one major component missing from the HF is the ability to delegate the free downvotes, but this can be mitigated with tools with posting authority, BuildTeam might release such a tool into Steemvoter.
@shadowspub thanks for engaging and offering to bring people here to discuss further, I am very much in your camp in terms of the 50/50, I'm not sold on it due to the negative perception, it might help the economics overall but the average user doesn't understand economics and only understand that they are doing the content creation work and losing half the value.
I'm onboard with all other EIP and SPS changes.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
@shadowspub feel free to comment on this new topic thread regarding SPS funding https://neosteem.com/topics/thecryptodrive/tokenbb-topic-sps-funding-methods-1560723942014
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
@distantsignal, thanks for the detailed response.
I am not so enthusiastic about the 50/50 so not going to argue with you, but do have some comments on some of the suggestions, all are good but there are some caveats.
External users on Twitter, Reddit, etc won't really understand the Steem economy well enough to effectively suggest what will be good for Steem and will just add additional noise pollution and trolling that will undermine the decision making process.
Testing on another user interface won't give the desired behavioural results, people won't try game or bot a testnet token, Steemit inc will launch a testnet prior to the HF and there will likely be a condenser (Steemit.com) testnet interface with it, but since the rewards won't be real you can't gauge true economic effect, you can only see how it works in practice.
Regarding incremental HF's rather than an omnibus like this one, I was once a proponent for the incremental approach however it was highlighted to me that HF's are very disruptive for exchanges and too frequent could lead to wallet downtimes and even delisting if costs to maintain are too high, also each HF is costly development wise in terms of packaging, deployment and co-ordination.
All other points you make above however are valid, I especially like the point about bad actors hiding in the shadows, it is much harder to detect bad curators raping the rewards pool with multiple curation accounts voting their circle of writers than it is to detect a single user abusing author rewards.
This forum is meant to be exactly that, a place where the public can engage with witnesses and stakeholders in a place where the discussion is always visible and referenceable. It is a compromise between traditional Steem blog posting and the public Twitter/Reddit discussions you propose above.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to 50% Author / 50% Curator Rewards Changes
@raycoms I agree there will need to be some sort of iterative trial and error, this is all new ground. I also agree that wide consultation is also wise, even if external economists were brought in, even if in the very least just as a show that due diligence was performed before letting the changes loose, Block.one would likely do something corporate like that, maybe they even did. :)
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: Custom Json Limit increased
A last minute addition to the HF was added to increase custom json from 1 to 5 per block, this will greatly help apps that use custom json. It was limited to 1 previously when there were no RC's to limit spam, it is safe to increase the limit now that RC's exist to regulate it, also each custom json can only be a max of 2048 bytes in size as regulated by Jussi and 8192 bytes as a blockchain hard limit.
Steemit Inc issued this post about it.
https://steemit.com/hf21/@steemitblog/hf21-recommendation-raising-custom-json-limit
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to Custom Json Limit increased
This is a great change that will make it so much easier to DApp developers.
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: Best HF21 Summary Posts
So far I have found this one to be really good, https://steemit.com/normietalk/@justineh/normie-talk-hf21-explained-sps-eip-what-it-is-and-what-happens-next
Thanks @justineh !
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to Best HF21 Summary Posts
The @carlgnash 's post also makes sense:
https://steemit.com/hardfork/@carlgnash/dear-top-20-witnesses-please-reject-this-hardfork
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Best HF21 Summary Posts
Thanks for helping collate useful posts here @chrisaiki.
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: SPS Funding Methods
The SPS or Steem Proposal System is going to be a worker proposal system where developers, marketers and project owners can submit requests for funding for the furtherance of the Steem ecosystem. This will bring alot of external project to Steem in search of funding where they perhaps can't easily get elsewhere and one of those apps could be the killer app we need to catapault Steem to the moon.
There remains however a contentious issue of how it will be funded, allegedly Steemit Inc will fund 200K STEEM to kick it off, there was chatter that it was supposed to be more or that that may give more over time, but so far they are only commiting to 200K. The reliance on donations is not sustainable so inflation funding has been suggested for long-term sustainability.
Not everyone agrees on how inflation funding should happen here are some of the scenarios:
New Inflation source - None of the existing sources will be touched, a new source will be created but this means that the annual inflalation will increase and more token issuance will occur to flood the market.
Take a bit from all existing sources - I am a fan of this route, it simply is good PR, gives the feeling of Ubuntu - "togetherness and community" and that we are all in this together. I think this will be the softest and most diplomatic approach.
Take from author rewards only - Some people are proponents that author rewards take the most value away from Steem in return for low quality content being produced.
Which camp are you in? Feel free to discuss on this thread.
View this topic on TokenBB
Topic: HF Timeline Updates
For public reference there is currently discussion about a testnet being released soon and a tentative HF date being proposed for the 6th of August 2019, giving exchanges 30 days notice from the 6th of July.
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to HF Timeline Updates
Isn't it kinda risky giving notice to exchanges that early in advance? Considering that a sucessful fork depends on 17/20 witnesses adopting the new software. If a HF failed, wouldn't that really mess with exchanges that were expecting a HF at that date and time?
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to HF Timeline Updates
I believe there will be someone on hand all the time from Steemit.com liaising with the exchanges. I'm sure there will be a bit of exchange downtime but it will be managed, just giving them the heads up early to expect the change.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to HF Timeline Updates
@southernwolf, I have received better info from @smooth regarding how forks work with exchanges:
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to HF Timeline Updates
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to HF Timeline Updates
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: Testnet Discussion
According to Steemitblog the testnet will be available from Thursday at 1PM EDT.
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
Can any Steem user access the test net? Or is this purely only something for developers and witnesses?
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
Steemit is restarting the testnet later today.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
Testnet is up - running branch
testnet-20190628. There will be another tagged release candidate next week which will include the change to the 15 minute reverse auction to 1 minute.View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
@southernwolf yeah it will be public, I'm sure there will be a condenser (steemit.com) frontend to play on. Will keep you updated here when I know more.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
Steemit Dev statement:
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
Here is a link for a quickstart guide to Testnet https://developers.steem.io/quickstart/#quickstart-testnet
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Testnet Discussion
Steemit Inc has restarted the Testnet and should be back online tomorrow.
View the topic on TokenBB
Topic: Convergent Linear Rewards
This is to be part of the EIP, basically means that small votes won't have as much effect until it reaches a certain value, I think a Steemitblog post mentioned that value to be 16 STEEM, thereafter the rewards become linear again. This is said to be for the purpose dissincentivising whales from using multiple accounts to game the curation rewards, however quite a few have enough power to instantly hit 16 STEEM worth of post reward value so am still trying to wrap my head around it.
The proposed formula I believe is:
result = ( ( rshares + s ) * ( rshares + s ) - s * s ) / ( rshares + 4 * s );
Some concerns exist about disinfranchising the smaller voters with this proposal and will kill off microvoting amongst minnows.
Would like to hear some feedback from the community in this regard.
View this topic on TokenBB
Reply to Convergent Linear Rewards
My bet is on debacle, but I base that on prior results.
Rc credits was a good thing.
Maybe this will be, too.
The test will be in how quick the exploits are forked out of this fork.
I know forks are hated by exchanges, but good customer service (rofl) could mitigate that.
Stinc is better known for running customers off.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Convergent Linear Rewards
Wifi double posted.
View the topic on TokenBB
Reply to Convergent Linear Rewards
@freeborangel your reply worked, I think alot of things need to be tried and iterated, only by trying do you really know, I mean Steem is so down the dumps already, I suppose what is the worst that can happen? You learn more from failures than wins.
View the topic on TokenBB