Meeting tl;dr:
This has been a rather quick meeting, we mostly wanted to sync on the current testing status.
blocktrades' team is still hard a work, they found a few bugs in hivemind and are working on it, but it will cause some delays, we hope to get a testnet running in 1 to 2 weeks.
We are now in the feature freeze phase, which means no more features will be added to the release. So most of the work is being put towards testing and bugfixing.
We had the opportunity to discuss a few ideas for the future:
- Adding downvote power delegations
- Adding a decay to pretty much any "hive power" operation (proxy, witness vote, proposal vote, delegation etc)
- reducing the number of daily votes
Blocktrades would like to have another hard fork in about 3 months, that's quite an aggressive timeline but it would allow us to ship a lot of tweaks to what I would call the "business logic" which is kind of what I wrote above, it's changes that do nothing on the technical side but affect the economy of the chain and the way we interact with it.
But doing this "business logic tweak" hard fork would mean no smt for the next hard fork (as we can definitely not ship them in 3 months) so it's still up in the air what we will do, there are quite a few things for which we need to poll the community. Expect some from me or @blocktrades in the https://peakd.com/c/hive-102930 community.
Anyways, there are more stuff that we discussed but it doesn't really fit as "tl;dr" so feel free to listen in.
Shouldn't we be increasing the number of votes per day?
40 was a little much, but twenty would bust up some of the circle jerks.
Fewer votes only increases the take of the few, imo.
I get that the view from a large stake holders perspective says more votes is more work, and it is hard enough to find votable content now, but aren't we trying to spread the coin to more hands and not fewer?
Well you can do lots of small votes if you want.
I think a good compromise would be not forcing people to come to vote every single day, just let the voting power go to 200-300% or remove the penalty where the lower your voting power the less powerful your votes and let people vote with up to 300-400% I wouldn't mind checking what has been produced on a weekly basis kinda like I am checking my medium feed. Having to come every day and find 10 vote-worthy pieces just feels like a chore
If we didn't have the pressure to vote so much and so often I think it would encourage human curation greatly.
If you allow people to vote with more than 100% then you can have the best of both worlds where whales can vote much less and small stake holders can vote as much as they want.
Ok, let's decrease the powerdown time, too.
No point in slowing down the converting of those no effort rewards to btc, huh bruh?
This is a game, if you don't have time to play the game effectively, so sad.
If the game is going to be 'Watch the whales suck value out that I paid for because I suck so hard I can't afford more stake so I can downvote their rewards they self voted themselves and their minions, I should get a better job.', I don't think this endeavor is on a successful path.
The only people playing with those rules in mind are already here.
The reputation of this being true is already set in the market place.*
People are buying other coins because their model is not this one.
*Hive dropped out of the top 100 coins.
As central as you are to the creation of the coin, howo, you should be looking for ways to make extraction harder, not easier, imo.
Easier lowers the value of the work.
Derp!
I'm of the opinion that anybody voting over 500mv on any given day is cancerous to the ecosystem.
Especially, if that goes to the same ~5 accounts day after day.
You folks have had 4 years to finally listen to what the users are saying to you, but you seem intent on only hearing from the choir that you have financed.
Very Ned of y'uns, iyam.
What I'm trying to solve is not really to make it easier or harder to play. It's that it is always more worth to not play the game and let a bot do it than to play it. Because a lot of stuff is a no brainer. For instance I have probably 55+$ worth of autovotes on all of my posts because people know that my posts tends to do well, so they automatically vote on them at the 4 minute mark (it's the optimal time to vote before the other auto voters and where the reward time curve is not punishing too hard). Within 5 minutes, the curve part where the blockchain rewards early voter is completely maxed out. So unless you constantly refresh my posts, you will probably lose out to automation.
I like the game analogy, the problem to me is that the game is not fun to play. This could be effectively solved with layer two solutions with a proper recommendation system. Imo the change I am recommending is kinda applying band-aid to a cut limb. There is a much bigger problem with the way content is distributed, content sorting by rewards is a mistake and should never have happened. If you look at reddit or medium, most of the content at the top (their version of trending) isn't that interesting because it's not relevant to you. All of the interesting stuff is on your feed, but the feed on hive is just a list of stuff that was published, and you need to create that feed yourself, there is no gamification, no addictive design, no recommendations (think medium or youtube) to keep you reading more stuff.
That's another point that is a bit controversial, but I don't think having a coin that inflates that much is healthy, ideally I would like to have the reward model be based on something like the proposal system, where stakeholders can define how much money goes into curation rewards, into author rewards, into the dao itself etc.
Another thing that I thought of is simply not allowing to power down author rewards (it's not something I actively want but something I am thinking of). You earn more stake in the network which earns you curation rewards and more control over the network, I don't know right now, but about a year ago someone ran a study on the chain data, and found out that almost all of the author rewards were sold, either instantly, or powered down and sold over time, Why do we allow ourselves to have such downpressure for so little gain ? The downside with such system is that then bad actors would have stake and will be there on the platform wrecking havock forever.
Imo rewards should be defined by how much something is bringing to the ecosystem itself. If I had more time I would experiment with a front end / community thing with ads where the money is used to buy hive and then distributed to the authors depending on how many pageviews they have, that way at worst they sell and you have equal buy/sell pressure at best they power it up and keep it which just means more buy pressure.
This would solve another thing, due to the fact that a hive post only needs to get the attention of hive stakeholders, there is 0 incentive to share your post outside of it, which means that we don't get any of the "free marketing" that we would otherwise get from people sharing the content. For instance i've seen tons of tik tok videos even though I have never been on the app, just because people share them around.
Tl;dr: The game rules are not correctly set which creates a vicious circle.
Yeah I know, but give us more time, we haven't even released our first fork, it takes a lot of effort to erase all of the things that have been done wrong in the last 4 years. And we can't just solve them all in 3 months.
Haha I like how you use ned as an insult
Sorry if this is all over the place, I kinda dumped a lot of my thoughts into one comment.
I could see maybe up to 2x the voting power maybe but at the same time, logging in and checking your feed is the social part of a social media app. For better distribution it helps to have lots of smaller votes. You want people checking in every day and engaging with the content or there is no retention of users. A lot of the work done by your teams is technical which is great but at the end of the day, without users there is no point. Auto voting is a curse on the system as it concentrates the rewards among a few select users instead of actual content discovery.
Curation and engagement are two huge parts of this and breaking up the votes of larger accounts is a must. A large part of the rewards and retention problem is to much stake in the hands of too few. It gives them a lot of control over content, rewards, sps ect. To fully decentralize there will need to be a much larger spread of staked hive until we get to the stage there are 1m small accounts operating daily with a similar stake. Then you are fully decentralised. At the moment we kind of are but a few large accounts can still make a lot of important decisions by themselves.
The simplest answer is usually the best and get rid of all reward curves. That way people can vote for the content the actually like instead of trying to maximize rewards and front run a few high profile users. If your vote on a $1 post was worth the same as on a $10 post you can then choose your favorite as it cots you nothing. Simplicity is key for most things.
That's a point I agree on, I often find myself liking a post on trending but not voting on it just because it's already at high payout so I know I won't get optimal rewards.
See my other comment above I think you'll find some of my thoughts interesting as they relate to your post (content discovery / curation automation etc)
I often don't vote for good content as it has already been autovoted blindly and would rather share my small vote with the users struggling to earn a dollar per post. The curation rewards have never bothered me as I just see them as a bonus. For me the encouragement and retention is far more important in the long run and that will only happen with support from bigger accounts down to the smaller ones. There is no point in just voting sideways all the time as that will just consolidate the hive within a few accounts instead of a solid distribution system down through the ranks to further decentralize the platform eco-system.
I do find some of your thoughts very interesting especially on
As I had recently tried to bring up the subject.
https://peakd.com/hive-174578/@niallon11/ads-on-hive-blog-add-value-to-the-token-price-rather-than-take-it-away
While in the long run different apps, smt's and resource credits can add value to the system and drive the demand and price of hive. Imo that is still a long way off. Until then we need to add value to the token instead of just taking it away. BAT do this very well. Leofinance have started token buybacks and with the amount of content we create here we should be monetizing that data and putting the value back into the system. Unfortunately if we have a token where the value only flows outwards then the price will only go downwards. Its a self fulfilling prophecy as a low token price wont attract users or devs. A high token price will bring in both to work on the chain and add more value.
In these cases I often ask the author to write an additonal comment which I can then upvote to support him without increasing the curation rewards of the auto voters.
At least for the curation curve ... I presented a similar idea some time ago .
Uh huh, expecting the curators to put in the effort to properly curate is too much to expect, in fact, expecting them to shepherd more than one vote a day is too taxing on their fragile infrastructure, let's just hard code an automatic payment, eh?
Then they can strip value from what we are trying to build here with no effort at all!
If anything, votes should be doubled to twenty, imo.
Thank you for the consistent updates on development. I just wish @justineh would give us the courtesy of giving a public update to her workings paid for by the HPS. A fairly big chunk of change for zero written periodic updates (regardless of sensitivities) wouldn't fly in any other professional setting.
May I ask what is the point of reducing the number of votes (but increasing their relative value) will do to increase user retention and experience? I can foresee that this will concentrate rewards, with an increased value to the same content creators on trending. Wouldnt this also make it easier for big HP holders to earn bigger curation rewards?
Talk to those witnesses (community voted) who voted it and who have been given updates and who also supported the fact that I have signed NDAs and speaking publicly of any conversations with exchanges would leave me open to being sued. I mean I know that means nothing to all you, you just think I need to answer to you because you say so, but this isn’t some game 😃
Over 100+ Stake holders know the work I’ve done and have been updated along the way. Considering the very diverse group that did vote the proposal, that should tell you something.. but no no, let’s just keep complaining.
Thank you for some insight. I didn't realize NDAs were signed and I didn't expect you to answer me personally or get the claws out on me. I don't know where you got to assume that I was accusing you of anything and this is the first time I mention this. I was just merely asking what was happening.
Ps. I actually do appreciate the work you have done with exchanges. I just don't like the manner of communication. Now it is crystal clear that my HP or vote doesn't mean nothing. On that note, if my vote is worthless, I will never vote again for anything on Hive and let the inner circle decide.
You tagged me, so I responded. And I don’t have claws out, I’m being blunt about something I’ve addressed repeatedly but am still being drug through the mud by many users because I’m not doing as they wish, it’s getting old.
There is no inner circle, there are just people who step up and do shit. Then there are people who bitch about an inner circle.
Many diverse people who didn’t even like each other stepped up to work together to make Hive happen. Anyone had the opportunity to do so, but only few did. I find it quite sad that this community has a long history of bashing the doers and praising those who do nothing but talk. In that situation the doers eventually give up and you’re left with just a bunch of talking heads and nothing accomplished, something to think about.
The devs here, some who are receiving funds from the fund, are responsible for there even being a platform to be on. They are responsible for the community having a place to go. They are responsible for not being under Justin’s thumb. But still, people bitch and moan about them. Why? Because they are being paid out of a decentralized development fund. It’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen.
Now this isn’t just directed at you, as I do see you thanked them, but rather to the community as a whole. As if some of you had it your way - there would be no Hive. You would have Steem, with censorship, “influencers” and no future. People need to step back and decide what they want, and realize shit just doesn’t happen, someone has to do it.
As far as me, I communicated the best I could.. and not just with “the inner circle”, but exchange business dealings aren’t quite the same as some other work and yes many legal aspects were involved. Perhaps someone can develop a better system in the future, but I did the best I could.
Good luck.
lol I guess anyone under orca doesn’t need updates on where things go! I assume that fees was for “back pay” for the listings or so I half arse’dly read!
I’ll have to read up about these new updates don’t really underhand them all to well
Plenty small witnesses and stake holders were updated. I guess the conspiracy theories are more entertaining though. 👍🏼
Maybe you guys can find someone for the future who can do it while making a daily post for you, I never promised that.
I don't get the number of daily votes thing. Would that make single upvotes bigger?
Yes. @transisto has been the big proponent for this. He's suggested as few as 1 per day (with 10x power), which didn't get much traction. Lately he suggested dropping from 10 per day to 5 per day (with each vote twice as powerful).
I see, thanks.
On another note, what do you think of making curation rewards "linear"? Currently, people auto-vote content creators who tend to get lots of upvotes in order to maximize curation rewards, but that obviously disturbs natural PoB.
If instead, one would get the same curation rewards independently of what he voted on, one would start voting for the content he enjoys.
The reason for increasing curation rewards is to encourage people to find undervalued posts, but it is fair to say that this has failed. What I see instead is that curators find out which content creators have a dedicated group of upvoters and start to front-run the votes. This leads to a concentration of rewards on known content creators and destroys pure enjoyment.
I think that for a social media platform to be enjoyable, people just need to curate what they enjoy. Currently, if you enjoy a post that is guaranteed not to get upvotes after you, then you are missing out on curation rewards. Doesn't seem right as a model.
I think EIP generally helped in improving curation results, but I agree it's still far from perfect. One thing that would help would probably be somehow making it clearer how the rules work now, but the receipt of curation rewards comes long after the vote, so mostly people don't even know how the rules function, and so the actual functioning of the rules don't influence the behavior of many voters. But it's hard to see how to do this.
I don't think just dropping curation rewards would fix anything, as I suspect we'd see the rise of "gaming" based on a search of author rewards instead.
I am not sure I was clear. I didn't suggest dropping curation rewards, just making them equal.
For example: a 10$ vote gets 5$ in curation rewards. A 20$ gets 10$ in curation rewards. This should happen independently of other votes on the same post.
In the current model, if others vote after you on the same post, curation rewards increase. This causes people to auto-vote the same pool of creators, expecting others to vote as well.
Gaming based on author reward is perfectly natural, they just need to provide the most value/entertain, or circle jirk with others but that can not be eliminated.
OK, I see, you're suggesting that curation rewards be independent of relative voting time, but still leave curation rewards linear. It's an interesting idea. It leaves an incentive to vote (to get curation rewards), but it removes the incentive to try to be the first to upvote content that's expected to be popular.
In theory, of course, the current system was designed to encourage early voting and discourage late voting, as late voters get much less curation rewards. The idea was that this would tend to put a natural cap on how much posts would get upvoted and also to encourage upvoting of content that everyone would like, not just the voter.
But I would agree that in practice, this has mostly failed, in part because many people don't know how to maximize under those rules. And for those that do, it's become clear that it is easier to optimize via a bot set to vote for popular authors versus the potential losses associated with not voting enough manually. In theory, a dedicated manual voter who wants to maximize his rewards can beat the bots on returns, but I think it's just too much work.
Bots setup to vote before the 5 minute were also supposed to discourage automated voting of popular authors by bots, since it was supposed to generate a race towards the bottom on curation rewards (with bots voting ever earlier to capture more of a shrinking curation pie), but I don't see this occurring either (admittedly, I've only done eyeball observations using hivestats.io, I haven't spent any time analyzing all the curation data, but from what I've seen, I think I'm correct on this). Again, it's probably mostly just laziness, even by the bot operators.
Maybe it should be no surprise: in a wealthy society, people often pass up opportunities for money that require effort. Generally speaking, the larger stakeholders on Hive are probably in higher income brackets. And OTOH, small stakeholders aren't really that incentivized to work harder either, because the curation rewards are much smaller.
Doing some quick napkin math, I guess this shouldn't be surprising: a stakeholder with 100K USD worth of hive (a substantial stakeholder, somewhere between 400-500K HP right now), at best they might be able to get about a 20% APR by careful and consistent manual voting. They can probably increase that a little by adding in a bot to help. Alternatively, they can probably get 10% or so just by using a bot at the moment. So full time manual curation is only going to net you around 10K USD per year (vs just using a voting trail). That's a lot of work for the return (for someone who has 100K they can put into such a volatile investment as crypto). So for those who do manually curate, it's going to be driven more by considerations beyond just curation rewards.
Your idea is probably worth trying on a trial basis, but it's probably contentious enough that it wouldn't be easy to get consensus on it. I suppose this is one of those cases where something like SMTs would be nice as a way to do a trial run.
Yes exactly, that's what I meant. Amazing breakdown of all the economics that lead to the environment we are in.
I think in the last paragraph you meant to say that it is hard to get consensus on that (or not easy). And yes, I agree, it probably won't happen anytime soon.
Talking about it is the first step, good ideas sometimes catch on.
I do agree with Marki99 and your general observations, also based on eyeballing, not in-depth analyses. The gaming effect to be the first in voting new content, is not something most of the users will go for, we can't be at the screen for the entire day since the revenues are too little for most of the users. I actually believe after trying for 4 years reward based blogging, we shall move away from complex reward mechanism, which includes curation revenues. Curation rewards can be made easy by giving a fixed percentage of the vote value. No gaming needed anymore, since revenue is always the same, regardless of time of vote and order of vote. Added to that, introduce a random post channel with the same period as payout period and make this the prime channel of all Blog UIs to HIVE. Maybe even create a Comment channel like the Post channel, like Twitter, or mix new comments with posts in a channel with the option to the user to allow personal settings...I know, these are frontend features not related to the blockchain rules itself.
More strategic, I think HIVE needs to launch SMT quickly. At the same time, remove distribution of HIVE tokens to content creators and curators. SMT tokens shall serve the purpose of rewarding content. HIVE tokens maybe used to support communities in one or the other way. Maybe by creating community owned HIVE accounts with large vote power that will be used by curator teams. The community will have a say in which team is allowed what accounts etc etc. Key for this to happen is: 1) transparency (not in form of posts, but a website with all information 2) community voting system (part of mentioned website, not part of proposal system) 3) super easy discoverability of this website (buttons/links at all frontends, prominent placed, not hidden) 4) human powered governance system (to address miss conduct, abuse and all) paid by the HIVE blockchain. I believe these 4 points are required, though I never discussed this with other users/people in detail to understand if I missed something.
So, the guy that made accounts in the names of famous people on the pretext that when those famous people got here he would give them the accounts, but has since powered some of those down is getting traction in how to get more curation rewards for less work?
If we are trying to build the network effect of the inflation, shouldn't we be spreading more votes, and not less?
I don't know that he's getting a lot of traction, that really remains to be seen. All that seemed clear at first glance is there wasn't any interest in 1 vote per day.
Lol, I remember the firestick advocating that 3+ years ago.
I think he called for a slider that went to 400 rather than 100.
FWIW, I think his main argument is that 10 votes per day drives big voters to auto-vote, which I think has some truth to it. That in turn leads to centralization of voting (how well it then gets distributed is another question, of course).
Yes, I agree that voting a large stake responsibly is not easy work, and asking that stake to sit idle is alot to ask, too.
When Dan first balanced the math it doesn't appear that he accounted for the ninjamine having such an outsized influence on the pool in so few hands, nor how that would filter out from those centralized points.
At this point, I am at a loss how to move forward, increasing incentives to newbs is unlikely to overcome our reputation in the market.
That being said, the whale experiment got us stirred up pretty quick.
Any chance of a return to a community enforced cap on what any one person can take out, thereby increasing the influence of everyone else?
I haven't look since the fork, but a 500mv cutoff impacted ~70 accounts.
Beyond that, remediation of our image seems, to me, to be our key imperative.
Well, beyond the efficiency upgrades and smteees!™.
My own ideas for a social media platform (if that's really even the correct phrase to describe what I want to build) is radically different from the reward system of the base layer of Hive. They are so different in fact, that the only interplay between that 2nd layer system and Hive will be the need for RC to publish transactions (to pay for the costs of maintaining the network).
Isn't that what smteees!™ will give us?
I'm looking forward to hearing you flesh that out a little.
Do what?
Ok, but where you gonna find all them posts and not be giving the rewards to scammers that are only here to maximize satoshis?
Spreading out votes increases the odds of voting rewards to folks that want the ecosystem to increase in value, and not just skim as much as they can.
But, newsflash, you already know that, don't ya?
I wonder how many people thought that was actually Tyler they were voting rewards to?
FYI, I didn't notice any buzzing, but I also couldn't hear anyone else talking - there are big gaps in the convo (for example, around the 4:30 mark when the screen reads, "Bartek Wrona" I don't hear anything but white noise).
But thanks for keeping us updated - lots of interesting things in motion! 😊
hrmmmmm dang, I didn't notice. Will fix thanks for the heads up
Thanks for sharing the information!
Nice article
Hey man! Didn't know how else to get ahold of you, but the Steempress plugin you built for Wordpress does not seem to be pushing posts to Hive any longer.
Is that still working or supported?
Hi, it's still actively supported, please join the discord for help: https://discord.gg/Ar8KmzB
I love your simplicity in your developper skills
eems you just posted this for rewards and also you are a cunt.
(I'm very sorry, I think this is an unacceptable way to conduct myself on the platform, but it seems that popular opinion is this is cool!
Have a great day
!dramatoken
I never moved it over here, but lol, yeah
Dang, it, and !popcorn, were my favorites.