RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

[ew-and-patterns]

The current system incentivizes greed. That is the root cause.
I want a system that makes self upvoting less profitable than curating, but does not punish authors and small accounts as a side effect.

Comments

[valued-customer]

The current system improperly incentivizes greed. Greed is like gravity, it's simply part of the environment we are in. We can either create mechanisms that benefit the community from greed, like a waterwheel profits from water flowing downhill, or we fail, as these current proposals will do. It is the stakeholders - not the community of content creators - that will profit more from these proposals and gain an even larger portion of the rewards content creators make possible.

Tweaking the extant broken financial incentives is akin to trying to spend less on pumping water uphill. It's not ever going to be profitable to do that, and we need to make development of Steem more profitable than extracting rewards by corrupting curation.

[iflagtrash]

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

[kawaiicrush]

The words are wrong but the image is powerful. They are trying to solve problems by taking more 'rewards/water' from the users of the platform by widening the holes that are already the problem in the bucket? Am I missing something?

[iflagtrash]

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

[trafalgar]

If you can come up with any way to shift the status quo from our current failed system to
one where stakeholders actually vote based on content appeal with fewer or no negative side effects, I'm 100% all for it

Every measure I could think of had negative side effects which is why a combination of them used with modest intensity is likely best.

[ew-and-patterns]

I think a lot of people (including you and me) are trying to think of a better system than the current one, but everything come up with so far has negative side effects as you already mentioned.

I like that you started a new discourse about it, which even Stinc picked up on. Maybe they can come up with a better system with fewer side effects.

The best I have come up with is:

• No 15min curation window, everyone gets 30% of the vote back as curation regardless of the vote timing (I don't think spam is that much of a problem), 70% for the author. This only works if you make self-voting impossible or return to the rewards pool.
• This incentivizes production of good content that people would actually like to see in trending and it encourages staking, but it also has lots of side effects.
  And I don't think it would be able to kill bidbots (which is something I want as it hinders content discovery) Maybe you can think this through better than me...
  Can you come up with something that will make bidbots disappear?

Maybe combine this with passive returns for "locked up" steempower for the investors that don't give a f.ck about content discovery.

I also had a thought experiment with linking ID documents to the account. Nobody is allowed to have more than 2 accounts that earn from curation and posting. You can create more accounts, but without being able to link them with ID they can only write without earning...
(Because linking to ID is the only way that I could come up with to cap the maximum earnings of whales... because they can always split their Steem to 100 different accounts)

Sorry for this long answer...

[valued-customer]

"Can you come up with something that will make bidbots disappear?"

I think I did. Please see my reply to the OP below.

Thanks!

[iflagtrash]

I flag trash. You have received a flag.