Poll for the Witnesses -- on HF21

in #dpolllast year (edited)

Poll for the Witnesses -- on HF21


There has been a lot of discussion and debate in the community over the upcoming HF21. I know @cervantes did a poll last month. It was a straightforward YES / NO response. It has become pretty clear to me there is more nuance to this than black & white.

Here is your opportunity witnesses to express that nuance and let's see how the results come out. You've also had another month of discussions and opportunity to hear from the community.

I'm going to tag the top 20 witnesses but all Steemians are invited to participate.

@yabapmatt, @curie, @gtg, @blocktrades, @rolandp, @someguy123, @themarkymark, @good-karma, @aggroed, @cervantes, @therealwolf, @ocd-witness, @thecryptodrive, @timcliff, @anyx, @ausbitbank, @smooth.witness, @followbtcnews, @clayop, @lukestokes.mhth,

The witnesses will know what the acronyms are. For those who don't:

SPS is the Steem Proposal System
EIP is the Economic Improvement Proposal

For further details of what is currently being coded into the HF see this post


  • both SPS & EIP

  • Just SPS as proposed

  • just EIP as proposed

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

  • SPS & EIP but 65/35 instead of 50/50

  • SPS & EIP but not downvote pool

  • Neither SPS nor EIP

Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.

Sort:  

My answer is a little more nuanced than just picking one of the options. I plan to vote 'yes' to the current proposal, which includes both SPS & EIP. There are quite a few things I would have preferred to do differently, but it isn't about what one person wants - we need to find a way to compromise and reach consensus. It is my belief that the set of changes we are planning to move forward with are the best we can do with the resources we have and the differing opinions on what everyone wants to happen.

Tim .. I'm going to speak directly here and it may seem like an attack. It's not meant as such. It's meant me being honest to someone who I vote for as a witness and am trying very hard to maintain my respect for. I respect someone who will own their decisions. I might not agree with them, but they are at least taking ownership.

Finding a way to compromise and consensus requires listening to the various viewpoints and finding common ground to build on. That means that people involved need to be honest about where they are coming from.

I read your previous lengthy post and this response here and what I see is you alluding to not agreeing with the whole package but unwilling to own what you do believe in by stating it.

In many posts around the platform I've seen some of the witnesses coming out and stating where they differ or where they have preferred this to go. I've seen members of the community asking those questions of who supports what. It's a fair question. The platform and those on it are being impacted by the choices of 20 people, there is a responsibility for those 20 to own their views and help the community to understand the factors which brought forth the decision the group came to.

So, if you're good with the package as is, answer the poll with that option. If you have your druthers on some aspect of it then choose that option. Something close to where your true views are is a hell of a lot better than the bafflegab you've been engaging in.

And while I'm at it. There has only been one Witness that I've seen, actually heard, even try to explain what to expect in the short and long term if the HF as proposed goes into effect. The community is very aware of the situation with HF20.

That lack of warning about how those changes were going to impact the day to day use of the platform hit hard and served to push some folks away. On top of the bear market that was going on, it was just too much. Yes, I know, HF 20 wasn't tested effectively and there is a testnet running right now on HF21.

Information takes time to get around, we should be seeing some sort of communication on how things are looking, have issues been found that are being fixed? How does it look like it will play out? The witnesses are making the decision to include all this in the package, they have a responsibility to prepare the community for what is coming.

That’s fair. I’ll vote on the poll and type a longer response when I get home tonight.

So, if you're good with the package as is, answer the poll with that option.

Done.

I read your previous lengthy post and this response here and what I see is you alluding to not agreeing with the whole package but unwilling to own what you do believe in by stating it.

I would not characterize it that way. If it were 100% up to me, I would make different choices. I would prefer to have two separate hardforks. I am not a huge fan of the 50/50 curation/author split. I would choose different percentages in terms of how to allocate the inflation (between rewards pool, SP inflation, witness pay, and SPS). There are other things too.

If every witness decided that they were going to vote 'no' unless they got 100% their way, then we would never get any changes approved. I'm sure there are some people who would prefer the status quo over the set of changes that are being proposed, but I am not one of them..

The way I see it, Steem is on a path of mediocrity that is going to slowly over time lead to lower STEEM prices, thus lower author rewards, and less money for all the stakeholders involved in the platform. As a witness, I see it as extremely important to change our course, and get us on one that I believe will lead for higher STEEM prices - thus more author rewards, and more money for our stakeholders.

In short, while the changes are not really the set that I am 100% for, they are the best we can do when there are 20+ people all with their own opinions on what needs to get done. I do strongly support the changes over the status quo, so I am planning to vote in favor of the hardfork.

And while I'm at it. There has only been one Witness that I've seen, actually heard, even try to explain what to expect in the short and long term if the HF as proposed goes into effect. The community is very aware of the situation with HF20.

I agree with the sentiment, and agree that it is our responsibility to communicate to users as best we can before the hardfork.

We are still technically in the stage of figuring out what exactly will be in the hardfork though - there isn't even an approved release yet. I expect that between the time that there is an actual finalized hardfork and the time that the hardfork takes place, many witnesses (myself included) will be posting more on the subject.

Thanks Tim.

You are not the first witness to express a desire to see the two parts split into two HFs. As I recall Steemit Inc's post when they endorsed the EIP they were not planning on coding for it in HF21 and were bringing it forward for discussion and consideration down the road.

I'm not alone in agreeing with that stance by those witnesses who have it. Get the SPS in place and see how that goes. More importantly let the ones affected by the funding of the SPS get adjusted to that change ... then evaluate the EIP and decide how to proceed.

This apparent rush to put it all into one HF is really unsettling for a lot of people. As you will recall we've had a lot of changes stuffed into HFs in the past and with some really questionable outcomes. Then add in HF 20 which is not the same as HF21 but still it puts people on edge after that debacle.

I believe Tim said it direct to the point and based on what I have read to date about it all with a very high level of consensus from many Steemians:

" I would prefer to have two separate hardforks. I am not a huge fan of the 50/50 curation/author split. I would choose different percentages in terms of how to allocate the inflation (between rewards pool, SP inflation, witness pay, and SPS). "

100% agree with the "not a fan of the 50/50 split"

100% agree with the fact that we need to define the SPS in whole, including but not limited to the funding of it.

I feel as if we are back in the middle of 2017 where steemit.com was the one and only front end using Steem/SBD.

as we keep saying "Steem is not = steemit.com"

Will RIP on this topic for now and keep reading what everyone has to say on it.

I feel as if we are back in the middle of 2017 where steemit.com was the one and only front end using Steem/SBD.

I really don't get your comment that you keep repeating. The HF is about the whole ecosystem not just steemit.com. Nor is steemit.com the only front end that displays content created by Steemians.

Steem should be the powerhouse of SMTs and SMT's should be used by the front ends with whatever the owners of those front ends want i.e. 50/50 or 60/40 and anything else they can think of!

2017 is a ref to HF19 and the changes in distribution of upvotes/eventual payouts.

After HF20 setting the path to SMTs and an economy that can last many more decades after the initial 15 years of issuing the base currencies (Steem and SBD) we now are going back in time talking about our economy as if we are still in the middle of 2017 where everything was all about a blogging platform (then steemit.com).

We took a step forwards and now we are going two steps back!

The choice was either do both of them together or wait to do the EIP after SMTs. I don’t think we can wait that long for EIP and still expect the STEEM price to hold at a level where authors are even remotely happy with their rewards. Between the two choices we had, I would rather bundle them together.

seems to me the difference between you and I on this is that I'm looking to past history in that I was around when Steem was 7 cents. I remember that it took the bull market a while before the altcoins started to enjoy the benefit of the bull market.

So, I'm not concerned about the wavering price at this point. I am concerned about too many economic changes being made at once on the blockchain. I really do think that the EIP needs to be delayed until the impact of the changes for the SPS have opportunity to take hold.

I think Steemit Inc was smart to suggest that the EIP be discussed for a future HF when they endorsed it.

BTW, on another note. Who can change the write up on Coin Market Cap? The last time I looked at it, it needed some serious updating and revising. Looks like it was written when there was only Steemit.com and nothing else. It's not even close to being attractive toward an investor.

I took a stab at getting some community input on revising it here:
https://steemit.com/steem/@shadowspub/who-wrote-this-can-t-we-do-better-let-s-get-creative

I was here back then too :) I think I technically joined before you ;)

So, I'm not concerned about the wavering price at this point.

My concern goes beyond the 'bear' market. Our coin market cap rank has dropped significantly, and it seems to be continuing to go in the downward direction. In terms of the conversations that I have with existing and potentially new stakeholders - there is little reason for people to invest in STEEM at this point.

I am concerned about too many economic changes being made at once on the blockchain.

Fair point. Risk acknowledged, and it is a concern of mine as well.

I really do think that the EIP needs to be delayed until the impact of the changes for the SPS have opportunity to take hold.

This is where we will probably have to agree to disagree. Again, if it were up to me - I would rather do them as two separate changes, but I see the risk of waiting to fix our broken economy until after SMTs are done a much more significant risk.

Who can change the write up on Coin Market Cap?

Reach out to @elipowell or @andrarcy

My concern goes beyond the 'bear' market. Our coin market cap rank has dropped significantly, and it seems to be continuing to go in the downward direction. In terms of the conversations that I have with existing and potentially new stakeholders - there is little reason for people to invest in STEEM at this point.

Is there any plans afoot to promote the heck out of the new FCAS score?... that moved us from what D to A? Puts us 12th in their ranking.

Would seem cause to shift the needle on reason to invest. Without some waving the flag on that move it wont even get noticed.

but I see the risk of waiting to fix our broken economy until after SMTs are done a much more significant risk.

Maybe that needs to be explained a bit more? I don't necessarily agree there is a broken economy. But, what is the relevance of making the changes before SMTs?

I'm seeing references to the testnet not being up and working. Is the testnet going to be functioning and running for at least a month before the HF as I've seen talked about? To avoid the mess of HF20?

There is already good contributors heading for the door. Anything even looking like the mess of HF20 will send more in the same direction.

I do not know if you saw yourself on this interesting post about how the numbers will work out under the new plan, @timcliff. You are one of the few winners, although not by much, if these numbers are correct.

https://steemit.com/hardfork/@dreemsteem/now-you-can-see-the-numbers

I have not been able to understand this fork at all until seeing this post I just linked. It might not be really what will happen, but if it is, I think some serious re-thinking needs to happen among you bigs. I cannot pretend to know what that thinking will entail.

I'm an optimist on STEEM and have been for my two years here. Everything I do is to help small blogs grow and give minnow tips. I have always thought steem needs MORE content creators in various niches, not less. But maybe I am completely off track about the goals of this place.

replied there

Thank you so much for your answer, @timcliff. I really appreciate you giving those details. I asked a few people about this last night and those who answered were similar to you - wanting to see steem succeed. Like you, most hope and expect behaviors will change and benefit content creators in ways the current numbers do not reflect.

Based on this, I am going to go back to what I do here and keep working to improve. When the fork gets here, I will try my best to be a part of the new paradigm.

Before I saw that post I was already working to improve my (small) curation rewards and that has been going well. You answer helps me stay on track, and I am so glad you were one of the people I contacted.

Take care,

Sharon @fitinfun

How does Traf and Blocktrades and Cervantes getting exactly what they want constitute compromise? From the simulations "convergent linear" isn't really any different from an exponential curve for the vast majority of posts.

Is there some part of the "compromise" that supports the thousands of accounts disadvantaged by this proposal that I'm somehow missing? Because from here it looks as if everyone except Matt has just rolled over.

I agree with the idea of a convergent linear curve. There are problems with n^2 as well as purely linear. In my view, convergent linear is a happy medium.

For users with less stake, they are going to need to figure out how to play the curation “game” more optimally if they want their votes to count. The system was originally designed for rewards to be based on the “wisdom of the crowd” and this is more in line with that.

Who is Matt, and how can I vote for him? Oh, is that Yabapmatt?
Will anyone else step up who opposes EIP enough that they can get witness consensus to shift away from implementing EIP?

Drakos has stated no on the EIP ... he's witness 21. Not sure if he votes or not.

If we all vote for him, maybe we can push him into the top 20, where he will have a voice.

Posted using Partiko Android

he's had my vote for some time. Does a lot of great work on the platform including this site which I use a lot... https://steemian.info/witnesses
I use it a lot

He just got my vote

Posted using Partiko Android

Curious where other smart folks fall on this one? I tag you because I beleive you to be among the smart ones on the platform. I know some of you will disagree with my views, but I still like the variety of viewpoints:

@whatsup @justineh @guiltyparties @ned @jackmiller @upheaver @pennsif @tattodjay @c0ff33a @solominer @axeman @fiftysixnorth

Smart is a little excessive when you are referring to me, I prefer slightly less thick then custard.

https://steemit.com/witness/@c0ff33a/witness-update-steemd-v0-20-11-mira-and-hf21-with-me-c0ff33a

I wrote a ridiculous amount on the subject while rattling around in a minibus touring the coffee growing regions of Brazil last week.

well, Losing the Smart title when you mentioned Minibus

@bluefinstudios I think 50/50 is fine. It will encourage people to buy steem to power up to curate content. I've run accounts with 500-3500SP on steem auto and find they dont produce much earned steem pre hf21. But if I see a spike in rewards for that, I dont mind my overall posts have smaller rewards for myself.. since posting is only part of my steem experience. I upvote alot and if I can be rewarded for that more I'm happy with that.

I'm going to answer this off the rails a little bit in hopes that someone sees it: we should refuse all hardforks until a rigorous process for evaluating hardforks is developed. It can start with HF20, which still hasn't gotten one. (Does anyone know if RCs actually do any of the things they were intended to? My intuition from working with them is that they absolutely don't, but I don't think anyone's even tried to do a serious analysis. Not to mention any of the other things. Voting Mana still penalizes delegations twice, for instance.)

We absolutely should not be making any speculative economic changes without firm consensus goalposts for what constitutes success and what constitutes failure. 100% of the HF21 proposed changes fail this metric at this time, but it could still be developed before the fork.

To take the less-controversial example: suppose the SPS is implemented, and the downvotes dominate to the point that no project is ever funded, and the pool lies fallow. Is this failure? I'm not sure. Is there a level where approval comes too easily? I have no idea about that either. These things should be figured out before implementation, or they will never be dealt with afterward. (See RCs again.)

For that matter the discussion of reward distribution changes has made it clear that there's widespread disagreement about whether HF19 did any of the things it was supposed to. So maybe we should start with that one instead.

Voted for

  • Just SPS as proposed

A lot of the burden needs to be taken off of Steemit's back because Steemit is not the STEEM blockchain. Way too many people (I imagine) consistently beg them for this that and the other and putting things in the hands of the community as a whole, nurtures engagement and attention to what is going on.

Can see my recent post on what I think of the EIP.

Hi @shadowspub!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 5.959 which ranks you at #355 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 22 places in the last three days (old rank 377).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 193 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

That doesn't make much sense because in the end it is about reaching the consensus. For that it is exactly black & white, yes xor no.

Consensus is reached by working through the nuance ... i think it would be good for the community to see how much nuance the witnesses are working through to come up to that YES or NO response

I think a simple YES or NO is misleading right now.

If there were options, then, I suspect many more Consensus Witnesses would feel more inclined to withhold approval at this point.

As I mentioned elsewhere:
Perception in the greater market is important. It's not about REWARD Dollars.
It's how does the market value Steem? AND the value of steem is a perception based on a few factors.
How many users? Faith in longterm viability as a platform, among others...

So, what happens to the value of Steem, is, in the greater marketplace, people see users go from 1 million daily to 100,000? Or from 100,000 to 10,000? Or 1000? When small accounts leave, perception FOR WHATEVER REASON in the marketplace is, the platform is shrinking, therefore, the VALUE of Steem is going down.

Perception in the marketplace is more important than focusing on Reward dollars right now.

HF21 should be about implementing Downvotes, about implementing the SPS rewards, and yes, even the change to the curve, ... TOO MUCH Economic change all at once is VERY bad. It is destabilizing. AND again, Markets abhor chaos.

Is it too late to pull something off the Hard Fork?

My position is - let everyone vote on the Hard Fork WITHOUT the 50/50 rewards change. Pull that off - and let everything else be black and white.

cuz it's not black and white right now. It's - "I like these other things and want to see them implemented - but in order for me to say yes to them, I have to say yes to everything - which I don't necessarily agree with."

I appreciate @shadowspub's poll because it lets us see who is voting for what.

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

No option for SPS & 50/50 but not super-linear curve or downvote pool?

no .. had a few folks looking at variables but that didn't come up

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

Voted for

  • both SPS & EIP

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

From my understanding the proposed HF21 is an "all inclusive package deal", correct me if I am wrong.

Just to make myself clear:

"It is all or nothing"

or did I miss something somewhere in all the noise.

nothing that has multiple parts is ever all or nothing.

When the first mention of the HF arose.. it was stated as just to implement the SPS. At that point the SPS was to be funded by donations. At some point the decision was made to fund it from the reward pool, how much and what part of it.

Then Steemit Inc published a post talking about the EIP which was to be considered for some future HF. At some point a decision was made to add that to the HF under consideration.

I would hope that the top 20 had some serious conversations about each part of the two elements and the possible ramifications for the platform now and in the future.

So not sure how you can see that as an all or nothing package. Eventually a decision to fully implement or not has to be made ... that doesn't mean the witnesses are not free to express their concerns on elements of the current package even if they voted for in total.

It doesn't have to be, but as presented, from my understanding it is "HF21" which includes ALL (both) listed.

Personally, the only HF that I want to see is SMTs.

Til then, I refuse to go back into 2017.

"steemit.com is not Steem"

;)

Exactly. Have you figured out a list of witnesses who are opposed to EIP and willing to rejected it that I can vote for? This poll is an excellent step, but the names I type into my vote list aren't coming up... I think non-witnesses voted in this poll.

Plus, there just aren't enough. It should be a question especially for those just outside the top 20, too, so we can jostle them into the top 20 with our decisions, while we take some of the vulnerable pro- EIP folks out of top 20.

Voted for

  • Neither SPS or EIP

Voted for

  • Neither SPS or EIP

Voted for

  • both SPS & EIP

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

I don't see that 50/50 will help as well, because content creators are not earning that much if we consider the money they get in real dollar. Steem price is so low to tell that they are earning enough.

I think @streetstyle and @donald.porter will be interested to bote here and spread this poll.

I hope more people from #no5050 will vote here !

Thanks for the heads up, but guys @clixmoney @streetstyle are we gonna #SPUD 🥔 July 1st?

Posted using Partiko iOS

It's up to @streetstyle , my pc is broken and I need to buy one, so I can't power up anymore.

I understand, but us spreading the movement helps just as much or more than powering up

Posted using Partiko iOS

I think this 50/50 thing has more danger on steem than just people powering up or down. I hope you will vote on this poll and spread this.

You are right as creator I will look for another options if curators are going to take the half of my already little earnings

Posted using Partiko Android

Yeah, that's not fair to share 50% of our earning to others. We create the content, we work hard to make it great, we learn, we spend more time creating it than just clicking on upvote.

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

My profile is the one of a creator, I would like to curate more but sadly I don't have the time for commit to do more than I am doing, It's already on the low side so I fear to get even more discouraged with the drop, I hope this doesn't scare users like it happened with previous HF we really never recovered from that drop out... not trying to be negative and I'll still be here to give things a chance... can't say I'm enthusiastic about it though.

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

So many great hardfork discussions.

Steem Pubs Unite!

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

Voted for

  • both SPS & EIP

Voted for

  • Just SPS as proposed

Voted for

  • Just SPS as proposed

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

Voted for

  • SPS & EIP (Linear curve, and Downvote pool, but not 50/50 )

Voted for both SPS & EIP

Voted for

  • Neither SPS or EIP