As a top steem witness, will you support a hardfork implementing the “Economic Improvement Proposal” or “EIP.”

in #dpoll3 years ago (edited)

As a top steem witness, will you support a hardfork implementing the “Economic Improvement Proposal” or “EIP.”

As mentioned in this post by Steemit Inc:

The EIP has 3 components all of which we believe must be implemented in tandem in order to deliver the desired effect. If you’re interested in learning more about the rewards curve and the options for improving it, @vandeberg (Senior Blockchain Engineer at Steemit) has published a more technical exploration of the subject.

Moving from a linear rewards curve to a convergent linear rewards curve. A convergent linear rewards curve would start out superlinear, providing minimal gains at first, and smoothly become linear as more votes are made. Users that are interested only in maximizing the return on their Steem Power, instead of benefitting the platform through thoughtful curation, often engage in practices such as self voting or delegation to bid bots. The proposed curve incentivises concentration of votes on to fewer pieces of content, which increases the visibility of such counterproductive behavior. Alternatively, users could choose to act more subtly by spreading stake across more, but smaller, votes at the cost of a suboptimal return. We cannot eliminate such behavior entirely, but we can make it less economically viable.

Increasing the percentage of rewards that are distributed to curators. One of the problems with Steem as it stands is that there is a strong incentive to self-vote. The more rewards are distributed to curators the less incentive there is to self-vote. At the same time, if curation is improved, then those content creators who are currently submitting great content which isn’t getting seen, should stand to benefit as that content will be more likely to get unearthed.

Create a separate “downvote pool.” Downvotes are a critical component for regulating Steem, but there is no incentive to render them because they are not rewarded. In fact, they cost voting mana which disincentivizes the use of the downvote. This creates more opportunities for self-voting abuse as it reduces the likelihood that this behavior will be countered. By adding a small pool for downvotes that is consumed prior to consuming voting mana, users are more free to downvote content as a curation mechanism without losing out on potential rewards themselves.

The parameters that you, as a witness, are agreeing with when voting YES are:

  1. Increase curation rewards to 50%
  2. Use a convergent linear rewards curve (n^2/Cn+1)
  3. Use a separate downvote pool of roughly 25%

  • YES

  • NO

Answer the question at


So, I'm not really a fan of "omnibus bills" because it becomes hard to isolate which part of the changes were responsible for which outcomes. Isolated variables and all that. Yet I do understand trying to avoid too many hardforks.
So in general I say YES, with the following caveats.

For 1, I'm fairly agnostic and don't have too strong reasons to say yes or no with confidence. I'd also be interested in a future change allowing an author to choose any % higher than the minimum should they desire -- for example, instead of declining rewards I could opt to give everything to curators. To avoid future hardforks, the implementation should be a witness parameter to define the minimum an author can use.

For 2, choosing a good constant will be important, and perhaps should be defined in terms of the general economy or be a witness parameter. However, given a solid design here, I am in support for using a reward curve like this.
A long time ago I suggested using a relu / rectifier like soft plus on rewards. In machine learning, rectifiers are used to remove noise from a system by damping lower values, while leaving larger ones alone. The proposed change has a similar effect.

For 3, I have been a big supporter of a downvote pool for a long time. I would much prefer the availability % to be a witness parameter rather than fixed, however, as I don't agree that 25% is the right value (I believe it should be 100).
One fairly important part here however is separate delegation of upvote power and downvote power.
As an example, I may wish to delegate a portion of my upvote power to a curator looking to support Japanese authors, and delegate a portion of my downvote power to a collective that indiscriminately downvotes to counter bidbot upvotes. Like in this example, it doesn't make sense to restrict the two choices into the same entity.

In this case, there is more to combining the items than just reducing hardforks. They directly interact. For example, reducing the cost of downvotes makes it more likely those seeking to avoid downvotes will shift to harder-to-find micropayouts. Thus #3 is the primary motivation for #2. Likewise, the game theoretic balance between curation earnings and self-voting earnings depends on the relative risk of being downvoted, so the size of the downvote pool (#3) and the curation share (#1) are not independent variables.

IMO one can reasonably evaluate this entire proposal as a coherent package and either accept it or reject it without considering it as an onmibus package of otherwise-independent items (as we have been asked to do in the past).

Voted for

  • YES

I don't entirely agree with this proposal, but overall it shows promise.

1 (curation rewards) - This is the part I'm mostly concerned about. As @drakos mentioned, the psychological impact on authors having 50% of their post rewards go to other people could negatively impact authors willing to post.

This also aggravates bid bots, because now bid bots will be getting massive curation returns from their votes, and thus getting even more powerful. This in effect counteracts points 2 and 3, since by strengthening the returns for bid bots, it may reduce the cost of them - potentially cancelling out the other changes that would by themselves reduce the viability of bid bots.

As suggested by @anyx - having this be a witness parameter would help avoid future hard forks, witnesses would be able to adjust it over time in response to any positive or negative effects on author activity and curation.

2 (convergent linear rewards) - Overall I agree with this, it's difficult to see how this would affect authors in the long term, since it may deter authors with a smaller following.

At the same time it could help limit the current power that bid bots have over post rewards, keeping more of the reward pool available to authors who don't use bid bots.

Something that we may only find out after it's implemented, is how well this stands up to the fact that there are many bid bots available with high voting power, and when people use several of them on a single post then the curve may simply return to linear.

3 (downvote pool) - This is a definite YES. There is currently no benefit to downvoting a post. Skilled curators who often find the best and worst content, would generally prefer to conserve their voting mana for the good posts rather than waste it on downvoting poor content.

A downvote pool would help to encourage people to downvote illegal, low quality or plagairized content without worrying about it affecting their upvote power. This has been a commonly requested idea for a long time now - it's worth at least trying it out.

hello. i'm tasteem team memer lekang. our tasteem account was hacked, and recovery account too. our recovery account is, created by anonsteem. can you help me?

Voted for

  • YES

@crimsonclad and I have spoken about this in great length,among ourselves and with other's.

I believe @crimsonclad will make statement here and explain in more detail our thinking.

As posted in a few discussions:

I find it difficult to answer with a "yes or no" on this. To me, the fact that we've moved away from the discussion of SPS, and especially, looking at inflation, is a bit bothersome. This is the projected HF we have in front of it, and I would love to see it roll out with with funding that amounts to more than a "maybe" promise from Steemit Inc to put a tiny bit in the kitty to start.

FBN and I have talked about this at length, and I think in general we both agree with most of the things in the EIP package but they will also require some further considerations from both front ends and users to go along with base code or they won't mean much. While I don't finally speak for him, I myself just am not sure that all of them together, crammed in all at once, and attached to this upcoming HF is the way I want to approach it. We've been beating around the bush on this shit for years now, and we've got something the entire community (conceivably) wants and needs on deck with the SPS that still needs some attention to launch at it's most effective given the circumstances. I don't want to see the EIP suddenly suggested as a magic bullet HF that overshadows the fact that if we put the SPS in place we still haven't actually come together in a way that says "we as leadership have at least talked through the best possible ways to fund this so it will live and actually do the thing."

Long winded message out of the way, I think downvotes are the most important part of the package, so I am leaning towards a tentative yes, though I am not fully convinced that all at once and all right now is the right way to go. I think the curve and the 50:50 will not have as much impact as we hope, but I also hope to be proven dead wrong about that. I would not block this for spite. It's still trying to fix things, and as such being limited to a yes or no here doesn't really convey our opinions well.

We need a glossary of acronyms and steem specific lingo, within a framework of general terminology regarding blockchain and crypto.. Just a side note.

Also good to see you poke your head out @crimsonclad

Voted for

  • NO

Still not a fan of 50% curation. I think the authors deserve more rewards.

Seems like Near zero curation is being done manually just before the 15min, all automated, it could get way way worst. With 50:50, author will definitely get less

Automated votes before 15 minutes are perfectly fine. It benefits everyone else because it puts a share of curation reward back into the pool. The idea is that if it is so obvious that content is worth many votes (for example, based on author track record) within a short time, it doesn't didn't take much skill or effort to identify, and doesn't deserve much curation reward, and that cost is better spent elsewhere. This is equally true whether those votes are automated or not, perhaps even more so if automated.

My view is that the 15 minutes should be much shorter. Automated votes can still do their job of putting funds back into the pool on the no-brainer votes and it would get out of the way of human voters for all other cases.

50/50 suppose to fix that. 50/50 will make Steem more attractive to buy, power up, and curate.

They never seem to get this part. Wierd.

It only happens when I'm too lazy to wait ;-) Still doing a lot of manual curating (with some auto mixed in) nearly three years into it. Loving this thread, good exchange of ideas for steem.

In its current form (75/25), there is a big incentive to be an author who's powering down & selling constantly, instead of powering up and keeping the stake. What we need are authors that want to become big whales, because it's so lucrative. And whether you get 3$ or 2$ for your post - it's still a great deal for simply being an author/contributor.

There are no creators here that will ever become big whales. Pretending that there is even a chance at that is extremely misleading.

It would take 15 years for a creator to become a whale if he earned as much as 100 STEEM a day consistently. I dont think there is anyone here outside @gooddream with @xeldal support, maybe, that has even a slight chance at that. I wont count haejin or the bidbot posters that arent "real" creators.

If Steem ever created a stand out creator, even if it was just a single one, i dont think people would have a problem with any kind of split change.
You need to form an idea in peoples heads that there is something they can strive towards. Provide them with a goal they can achieve.

Theres nothing like that here. All youre doing with this is saying: "Hey, im bigger then you, im going to take some of your shit and if you dont like it... Tough luck.".

That’s on paper. Desired effect of the entire EIP is to encourage content reflective voting behavior, so it’s expected that authors would get more in the end, improving content discovery, and in turn, better valuation for the network. What’s the point of authors getting more on paper if voting behaviour is currently so terrible, contributing to a declining demand for Steem itself? That’s not really getting more. Plus authors can also enjoy similar benefits using their SP for curation.

Seems reasonable, my first thought is large temporary delegations in the short term could create great incentive for small accounts to be engaging curators. Best of both worlds

I dont know if it is possible, but i am a fan of a curation slider. It is similar to beneficiaries sliders in my opinion. Some groups can demand higher or lower, aithors get final say. Min 25 max 100 go.

I know there are more important things in the world like feeding starving children. There are probably more important things to do on steem, but these seem like simple issues.

Posted using Partiko Android

I dont know if it is possible

It's already working on Golos, which is Steem fork, so yes, it's possible.

So, even completely dead project could manage to implement this feature.

A completely dead project could implement a automated gif with a hitler speech and noone would notice it. 😁

Posted using Partiko Android

All I wanted to say is slider for curation rewards isn't rocket science.

Its not. But a curation slider wouldnt do much. You just open a venue for more arragements under the table.

Posted using Partiko Android

with 50/50 curation reward more will be willing to buy Steem and use for curating. As it is right now more people incentivized to self vote, sell and exchange votes. In the end, it will benefit the authors more as they will potentially receive more upvotes. Moreover, the authors will be incentivized to upvote those who comment on their posts and engage with them. I don't understand why people don't see this.

Why do you think people care about curation? Most of the crypto market doesnt care about much outside ROI. Why do you think they would care about voting up deserving creators?

I dont understand why you think others share your interests.

But, do you not think by increasing curation rewards more votes will be made to offset it?

That's the idea behind 50% curation, but I don't think it would necessarily be a guaranteed outcome. Let's say an artist is blogging regularly and getting consistent support from regular curators. The audience is stable. If the author reward gets slashed from 75% to 50% it would demotivate the author more than guarantee a bigger audience or curators.

It's also a psychological factor: others getting more rewards for the work of the author! It doesn't make sense.

Another thing is the platform is growing, so curators are faced with more content to discover than to curate the current user base. To curators, it wouldn't really matter who/what they vote for, they would still get 50%. So when the user base increases, the support to that particular artist will be diluted. Therefore the artist will be on the losing side in the long run while curators reap more profits.

I personally don't care about my curation rewards, my joy comes from the work of people I support. I think curators greed may be driving that push for 50% which I find very steep. Perhaps 30% curation would be a good start to try that idea instead of doing a full blown cut on author rewards.

I didn't see you consider a situation where the platform is declining?

Imo, as an active daily Steem user, we need to fix content discovery at all costs. If we don't and competitor comes up that actually does reward content based on quality, this place probably will be forgotten so fast, it'll be like snapping fingers. We don't have a lot of time. And let's be real, look at our adoption rates, something is clearly wrong and keeping the same set of rules, in my mind, for that reason alone isn't a reason. After all, this place is paying for authors, yet they're joining in small numbers and most even leave after a while. So it's mind boggling to me how some want to keep the current system.

I've been Steemian for over 2 years but I'm powering down and selling in case this EIP is not implemented, as that's a clear sign that the users are actually happy with the current situation, and I cannot say the same, at all. Someone will get it right eventually, and I'm supporting the ones willing to try and I've heard there's one coming soon with major backing.

Edit: Oh, I can see you're powering down as well. It seems to be common these days, cheers.

You are probably right with the idea that a small increase would be good to see if it was having the desired effect. Maybe a 50% jump would be too big at this point especially with autovotes in play. But, I would be happy to share more of my post rewards with people that were interacting on my posts organically. I do think that we have to find a way to encourage more curation and reading of posts on the platform.

Another thing is the platform is growing, so curators are faced with more content to discover than to curate the current user base. To curators, it wouldn't really matter who/what they vote for, they would still get 50%

This and this:

I personally don't care about my curation rewards, my joy comes from the work of people I support. I think curators greed may be driving that push for 50% which I find very steep.

I saw that as the driving factor from day 1. Im a smaller account then you and i vote stuff i find enjoyable, i never calculate before i vote, i care little if my VP goes down..
My behavior will not change and i dont think the behavior of those that are using the platform "as intended" will either.

Firstly I am concerned about the stagnant state of Steem, doing nothing has a greater cost imo. A change to the economy could be the fresh catalyst that brings about reform and better Steem prices for stakeholders.

  1. I don't totally hate the idea, I think it would increase demand for SP and possibly increase the value of Steem, however as per @drakos it could also have the effect of discouraging content and we are left for a wasteland of low-value posts, its a psychological thing in the end, why must I take 30-60 mins or longer creating a post when I can just vote stuff and get the same % rewards, also there is the risk of bandwagon voting where certain authors will get all the votes because people know they are going to get many pile-on votes.

BuildTeam services such as DLease and Steemvoter will benefit from this, but I am cautious about making this change and would rather see more focus on the SPS (DAO); a change to the rewards as well as a further hit from inflation source funding to the DAO would be too much and would create too much fricition, confusion, unrest and rage quitting in the community rather than focussing on coming together to make worker proposals successful.

In saying that if majority of witnesses go with this, I will follow suit as it does have potential upsides and only by trying do we know, we could alway revert back if it sucks.

  1. Agree

  2. I think this is fine, I also agree with @anyx that it should be a witness parameter, 25% is a very standard figure and may not be the right % and may need some tweaking over time to get it right.

its a psychological thing in the end

This applies to everything. Actually the most important thing in this whole story.

Glad you brought up the DAO. If a DAO inflation drain happens with the 50/50, Steem is literally dead. You might as well just move to paying out inflation to stake holders.

Personally, I think it is too much to lump in one HF, the DAO should happen first, maybe combined with the downvote pool and then let users get used to that and make the DAO a success before doing any other changes.

Rage quitting will never die, it's entertainment value is unequalled..

Posted using Partiko Android

Voted for

  • YES

There are many sides to this discussion and I agree with @anyx that putting everything into one bill makes it very hard to isolate the changes for themselves.

I want a downvote pool and 25% sounds reasonable.

Curation rewards at 50% sounds fine to me, the argument there is from both sides pretty much the same. It can be better or it can be worse, but the system will balance itself. If it reduces self votes and brings content creators in, then I am happy.

The rewards curve is in my opinion the most controversial and the most hard decision. I like a linear curve as it makes it easier to predict what will happen and simplicity is a winning point. But I also like the anti abuse factor of a different curve. All the while that will kick the smaller creators who won't earn that much and will now be double left in the rain when you add curation reward changes and downvotes.

I think we need bold moves to get this system out of the bitterness and entrenchment it currently is in. These changes will do just that. We might have to do another bill next year but incremental changes are something I can get behind.

All the while that will kick the smaller creators who won't earn that much and will now be double left in the rain when you add curation reward changes and downvotes.

if this is right we would be even more excluding the most important part that this platform needs. more new people that would stay here. as an introvert i do like small groups of people but a social network with 500 people is a bit ridiculous :)

Voted for

  • NO

While I am strongly in favor of adding a separate downvote pool, I have to vote "NO" as this is being presented as an all or nothing option.

I am not at all confident that the change to 50% curation rewards is a good idea, and may even possibly turn out to be a very bad idea. In addition, I think we should focus our limited resources on the most important things, and in my opinion there are many more important things to focus on than the posting/voting reward distribution numbers, which, in the scheme of things, are only understood or matter to an extremely small number of people.

Obviously, if the majority of the top witnesses feel differently and choose to approve this change I will support it fully and do my best to ensure that the hard fork is sufficiently tested and rolled out smoothly, however I wanted to take this opportunity to let the community know my stance on these proposed changes.

I agree that 50% curation could turn out to be a bad idea. As a content creator i feel that the loss in post rewards is biger than any gains in curation and extra votes.

I would like to suggest a change in the distribution of curation rewards within the existing 25% system instead. If early voters (like in the first 30 minutes) would get an even bigger share than they do now, you would shift curation rewards from vote sellers to actual curators and by doing so stimulate curation as well.

If voting bots were not to cast votes within those 30 minutes, users would be stimulated to beat the bots and vote early. Users from bots who do not comply to this 30 minute rule could be corrected from downvotes from the coming downvote pool.

I think this would create the same results, without harming content creators.

Yes, for reasons discussed well over a year ago, and repeatedly discussed since then. In short, this is the clearest proposed way to reduce self-voting of valueless content and discourage bid botting by encouraging the rewarding of good curation work.

I don't understand why it would reduce self-voting. The hypothetical self-voter gets either 25/75 =100 or 50/50=100.

Are people expecting, oh, but then someone could snipe some of the curation rewards from the whale by pre-voting them?

But they're still delivering as much author value to the whale as they're taking in curation... so it's a zero-sum improvement. Why would this change self-voting behavior?

A self-voter gets the same amount under either system, but a non self-voter gets more under 50/50. So the incentive to just self-vote instead of "voting your true opinion" is much lower. The 50/50 division will also impact the direct profitability of buying votes from bidbots (bidbots won't be able to give us as much money to a post relative to their SP by voting on it).

I am not a big fan of 50% curation reward. But I also think increasing curation reward has no substantial benefits neither has critical harms.

Regardless of curation reward, an important issue we are facing is broken contents discovery and rewarding system due to brainless curation. I think 2 and 3 may give some chances to resolve this issue. If this solution does not work, I will strongly insist to separate investor's reward from content's reward with the launch of SMTs.

In sum, my answer is YES.

I'm leaning in favor of the package.

I'm not going to 100% commit to anything until there is specific code and I'm deciding whether to run it.

Voted for YES

Voted for YES

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • YES

I wrote quite a lot about this in my posts/comments, but to sum it up:

Increase curation rewards to 50%

1.) Important in combination with better downvotes, to incentivize people to vote on great content. More curation => bigger incentive.
2.) 50/50 gives stakeholders more incentives to vote on other posts (instead of self-voting)
3.) Last but not least, to reward people that are staking Steem as Steempower. Which could result in less selling-pressure => higher Steem price.

Use a convergent linear rewards curve (n^2/Cn+1)

The current linear rewards curve isn't great, but it could be better. And the convergent linear curve seems to provide this. Now, if it doesn't work out, we'll just change it back. But we need to test it out, in order to make sure we've got the right configuration of this system.

Use a separate downvote pool of roughly 25%

Downvoting is important, but there is literally not a reason for stakeholders to do so, besides out of their own moral (at least in a big scale). There is no direct reward associated with downvotes; no curation and no author rewards. And those trying to maximize their stake, to get back some of the value they lost after the harsh Steem evaluation drop of up to 90%, will not downvote in its current form.

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • NO
    Lol! I thought you were asking a rhetorical question for everyone... Turns out you were really just asking top witnesses. Lol!

(See my more recent edit below)

I'm a soft "yes" on these changes (opinion only, since I am not a witness). I'm not enthusiastic, since I do not think they will solve the problems they identify and/or are not necessarily the best ways to address those problems. I'd rather experiment through many SMTs rather than guess on which tweaks will work for our one big petri dish; that one-size-fits-all approach has not worked too well. But on balance, they will make Steem slightly better.

EDIT: After further consideration, I have turned against this set of proposals. They do not make Steem better; they hurt it and should be rejected.

Not a witness either but I'm inclined to agree with most of your viewpoint on the subject.

I am mostly a yes, but I am not convinced 50/50 will solve the problem as abuse will move a lot faster than we can and will adjust to almost anything we throw in front of them. Authors are going to be discouraged as this on paper removes rewards from them but in theory, should increase them for good content producers. The experience here so far the majority don't care about the long term and just want to create rewards, power down, and sell.

I am ok with a small curve like this to reduce micro spam but not something aggressive unbalancing it. I think @anyx said it well regarding the curve.

I am all for improvements for a downvote pool. I think the % would be an effective witness parameter to allow some adjustment without a hard fork if we have to move it up or down although I am not 100% sure how much overhead this will add and if it is even technically feasible.

I think we should keep things simple and flat so creative things can be built on top. See TCP/IP. There could be for example a gambling app related to winning big votes. These things can already be done with transfers but I guess using vest and reward pool makes these things safer and part of the resulting reward is vested.

I am for removing the curation reward to make the economy system even more flat to incentivize builders.
You know full well about the added complexity of running a bidbot when a big part of the money is gamed into front-voting.


It’s hard to avoid the gaming, anything done most will try to game it as long as there is some benefit to them. The larger the benefit the more effort they will put into it.

Almost every solution has a simple work around that can be implemented quicker than a hard fork.

In my opinion is more herding the cattle closer to the greater good. It will never be perfect and everyone will not play ball.

If you mean for every attempt at forcing people to curate will be gamed before the fork is even live I agree.

We already know downvotes cannot abused for self-rewarding and will therefore be used for the greater good as seen by stakeholders.

Seems the creator slider option to decide 25% to 100% will at least make the abuse more malleable, the downside is it will be impossible to curb whatever abuse arises out of this dynamic.. Plenty of data would be made available though in regards to which percentages are being utilised..

Posted using Partiko Android

Voted for

  • NO

what's the logic behind:

The more rewards are distributed to curators the less incentive there is to self-vote


I sincerely wouldn't stop self voting (if I were a whale and were doing such practices) when this measure would be applied.

This sounds to me more like a measure to benefit stakeholders in order to attract more whales to come here.

Content creators will go away...

But hey, that's just an opinion from an insignificant red fish.

Posted using Partiko Android

I suggest to not change big things suddenly!

Don't jump from 25% curation rewards to 50%
We can increase it by time, like +5%/week until it reaches 50%

Voted for

  • YES

I'm stating the decision behind the @curie team.

Happy post hunting ;)

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • NO

I'm no witnesses at all.

I'm no witnesses at all.

Then don't vote. :)

@bluerobo has to vote on dpoll, he was programmed that way. 😂

Thanks for contributing to the dPoll content.

You have been upvoted from our community curation account (@dpoll.curation) in courtesy of This Guy... @bluerobo.

Come, join our community at dPoll discord server.

If you want to support dPoll curation, you can also delegate some steem power. Quick steem connect links to delegate:
50SP | 100SP | 250SP | 500SP

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • YES

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them?


yes 50% curation is great idea. This way quality content will be rewarded. So atuhors get more upvotes. We need quality bloggers on steemit not a spammers.

Voted for

  • NO

Hi @cervantes!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.150 which ranks you at #293 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 198 contributions, your post is ranked at #20.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • You've built up a nice network.
  • The readers appreciate your great work!
  • Great user engagement! You rock!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Voted for

  • YES

I'm not a top witness nor bottom witness :) but I think this question should be asked for each case separately. Though some replied that way, not everyone does that. I'm actually curious about witnesses' opinion about each question.

Voted for

  • NO

Curation rewards are too high!

I like the changes to flagging but fuck that 50% curators shit. Even a 33% curator / 66% author split would be better than a straight up 50/50. I'm all for modifying the system to try out new things but increasing the curation rewards effectively 100% seems a bit much out of the gates.

Also hoping people aren't just agreeing to vote yes because they hope it will increase their reputation or backing from Steemit Inc. Opposing hardforks isn't meant as a show of disrespect but rather a firm foot in the sand against changes that the witness as individuals, without outside coercion, should be backing if they wish.

Voted for

  • NO

I would like to see, that the Coin "Steem" and its "Reward Pool" will be designed more towards an infrastructure Coin instead of using it primary for POB content discovery. The reason for that is, that with the introduction of communities and SMT the Steem Ecosystem is not only more about "Content creation" and discovery.
No, we have a bunch of financial dapps, gaming dapps, services etc... which don't have anything to do with content discovery. All those Dapps should have more or less "equal" chances to receive Support from the underlying Steem Reward Pool mechanism to earn and empower their communities.
I think Steem is good with Steempower for Voting on Witnesses and Proposals (plus a new feature in the future Voting for Communities and Dapps) and as a source of Ressource Credits. For me that should be enough, on the level what Steem is doing to support its Ecosystem and for the use of the POB mechanism...only vote for Witnesses, Proposals and SMT or Communities.
No, more voting and abusing the reward pool by creating and discovering or gaming the content creation part.
All this POB content creation and discovery mechanism should be happening on the level of SMTs, and its communities, because these groups will have Admins who are able to set in rules how each community handles its users and the way they value content creation.
If Steem gets understood as a infrastructure Token and SMTs are understood as a empowering Community Token, than we have a clear Vision for all participants Investors, Users and Creators alike.
I don't like the idea that we are aiming for a SMT Ecosystem where all these project fight for attention but the real mining of Steem only happens on the content side of things...somehow that doesn't make sense.
Why should other Dapps or Communities suffer from miss management of the Steem Reward Pool which is only used for content creation and discovery?

That’s for the quick sum up at the bottom. Makes it easy to understand from a non-developer standpoint.
I trust the choice of our collective witness, we shall see which way this goes.

Posted using Partiko iOS

It's not like we small fishes has any power to influence it anyway lol

A lot of small votes combined still matters. But it's just fair to just trust the elected witnesses as they probably understand the inner workings of Steem better.

Perhaps going to meetups would be a proper time to voice your opinion. I find that in person Steem Power and reputation matter a lot less. Communication becomes the top priority.

I understand what you mean by not being able to sway much with a small vote power. However many small votes together in the form of an initiative could be powerful.

Meetups huh? Too bad I'm not living the west.

I generally agree with the EIP. It's just kind of frustrating that most of the time when changes are to be made I just... don't matter.

Depends where you are located I suppose. Even where I am in the US it’s difficult to meet other users. I did attend a meetup with 20+ Users last year. It was great.

I can feel your frustration.

You're upping the drama to new levels! Have a DRAMA.

To view or trade DRAMA go to

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • NO

i voted no because i don't agree with this proposal, as i believe it will degrade the content creators.

Moving from a linear rewards curve to a convergent linear rewards curve. A convergent linear rewards curve would start out superlinear, providing minimal gains at first, and smoothly become linear as more votes are made. Users that are interested only in maximizing the return on their Steem Power, instead of benefitting the platform through thoughtful curation, often engage in practices such as self voting or delegation to bid bots. The proposed curve incentivises concentration of votes on to fewer pieces of content, which increases the visibility of such counterproductive behavior. Alternatively, users could choose to act more subtly by spreading stake across more, but smaller, votes at the cost of a suboptimal return. We cannot eliminate such behavior entirely, but we can make it less economically viable.

Couldn't the superlinearity in case of small rewards be circumvented by delegating to a bot that keeps its upvote size above a certain threshold but only gives that large upvote at a time frequency proportional to the size of each delegation?

The downvote pool sounds like an interesting idea but its abuse potential somewhat frightens me. Not more than 25% (of what?) should be allocated to it. Perhaps even less at first.

The 50/50 split between curation and author rewards would make using bid bots somewhat less attractive at the outset. (I think it was @tarazkp who published calculations on this in a post of his a few weeks ago.) But then again, upvoting high-earning posts would be more lucrative for curators with even partial superlinearity across the curve and with 50% curation rewards.

My point is that anything can be gamed. @edicted had come to the same conclusion and had some interesting and novel ideas regarding rewarding content discovery. I remember @theoretical discussing that in a video with @ned a long time ago. I'm inclined to agree with the aforementioned that curation is something best left for the free market to sort out in a post SMT world where apps are free to experiment with their own curation rules and perhaps things like using Oracles to identity users (*) (if the goal is account-based voting).

*) Does software that reliably identifies a person from, say, national ID papers and the photo therein by checking it against a web camera photo exist? If the identification could be done locally without sending the information anywhere, a hash of the personal data could be used by an oracle to make sure that one person would be allowed exactly one account in an account-based voting system. That would open up possibilities to use an SMT in an account-based system without many of the problems that plague all stake-based systems.

Voted for

  • YES

Hi. I got excited when I saw a vote from you. Such a shame the post paid out yesterday. So close! :)

Hi. I'm sure you have heard about all the drama going on with the Steem witnesses. The community witnesses could really use your support! You currently have 16 unused witness votes. Are there any other community witnesses who are worthy of your vote?

This is hilariously ironic considering when I do use the downvotes applied in this HF as disagreement of rewards you retaliate like a little baby. :')

@xeldal Greetings to you and this is to wish you a happy and prosperous New Week ahead.

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • YES

Voted for

  • NO

Voted for

  • NO
  1. Increase curation rewards to 50%
    YES. Keep in mind the 50% percent is shared to all curators. Mostly likely close to zero after distribution to curators.

  2. Use a convergent linear rewards curve (n^2/Cn+1)
    YES. I don't see other solution at this time. If someone can provide a better solution and make it in action. I'll support it too.

  3. Use a separate downvote pool of roughly 25%

Another suggestion.
Make the upvoting bots set to $1 MAX. So the rich don't abuse it because they can buy them up.

Voted for

  • NO
  1. Disagree, I was on the fence about this but the more I think about it the more it will just make people less likely to want to create content to begin with.

  2. Agree

  3. Disagree, I think it should be higher if there was a pool to be created.

Agree with point 1.