@Reward.app - liquid payouts for author + liquid curation rewards :)

in #hive2 months ago (edited)

Hi guys, how's it going.

Today @acidyo made an announcement post for @reward.app - a new utility tool on Hive .

Following his work, in this post I will go into a little more detail about how it actually works and why we're doing this :)


1.gif


How to use @reward.app:

Basically set @reward.app as beneficiary at 100%. You can do this both from https://hive.blog and https://peakd.com when creating new post. You can also set it to less than 100%, it won't cause any problems but it's best to just leave it at 100%.

What will it do

It will pay your post reward in all liquid form - so instead of HBD and Hive Power (locked Hive) it will send you HBD and Hive.

Additionally it will take 4% of your (author's) reward and pay it in Hive to the curators - in practice boosting curators reward, this time paid in liquid Hive instead of Hive Power. Tasty stuff for curators if you ask me.

This 4% is a default value that can be changed anywhere from 0% to 100% (more about that in a moment).

What's the cost

We take 1% fee from the author's part of the reward (0.5% of the total post payout).

Curator's share

When you post something on Hive, the total post payout is always split 50/50 between author and curators. @Reward.app can only manage the 50% that goes to the author. If you set @reward.app as beneficiary at 100%, upon post payout:

  • 95% of the authors reward will go to the post author in HBD and liquid Hive
  • 1% fee will be kept by @reward.app
  • 4% will be paid to curators in liquid Hive

If you want to change this 4% value, simply send 0.001 Hive to @reward.app and in memo type any number between 0 an 100. If you send 0, it means that you don't want any additional payout for curators and 99% of the authors reward will be paid to you.

If you set it to 100% - all your reward will go to the curators. Of course, as mentioned above, you can select any number between those two. The higher the number, the larger part of your reward will be sent to curators.

Additional curation reward distribution

Since @reward.app manages distribution of the additional curation rewards, it can use different formula to calculate reward for each voter. In the future users will be able to choose which formula they want to use, for now we support two ways:

  • proportional to curation reward - so this mirrors standard curation reward distribution on hive
  • proportional to vote - the higher the vote, the higher the curation reward. There's no time penalty, also the order of the votes does not matter.

The second method is the default one currently because of something that @acidyo mentioned in his post - valuable posts, after getting some reward, often are not getting any more votes. That's because the expected curation reward for those votes is not high enough for many curators / stake holders. For them, it's more profitable to just upvote authors that are known for aggregating tons of votes - the expected curation reward is just higher.

With the method that does not punish the later voters we hope to change this situation a little :) But still - this is an experiment and we're gonna see how it's gonna work.

Why?

In general - I really like this idea because if gives more incentivize to power up to get those additional curation rewards. I think that in general part of the curation rewards should be paid in liquid form because then you don't have to power down to make use of your earned rewards. Powering down feels kinda like damaging your account while you might need liquid Hive to invest it into a project, send a tip, sell it or just power up to get more liquid rewards. @reward.app aims to bring this functionality to Hive.

Then, there's the problem of punishing late votes that I've mentioned above.

Of course it happens at the cost of the author's earnings, but - if you provide additional reward for curators, you can expect more upvotes which will make up for the loses. Or not? That's the thing - we'll see :)

What's next

We're gonna need a website so users can quickly and comfortably check and set their settings - like the curators share, curation reward distribution method etc. Then it would be nice to have an option for automatically adding comment like "This post uses @reward.app to pay 10% additional curation reward to curators" etc.

If community will like it maybe we can try to integrate it into the peakd.com interface as those guys are doing awesome job and are very open when it comes to adding useful things.

If you have any questions, feel free to add them in the comments and see you next time!
Sort:  

In general - I really like this idea because if gives more incentivize to power up to get those additional curation rewards. I think that in general part of the curation rewards should be paid in liquid form because then you don't have to power down to make use of your earned rewards. Powering down feels kinda like damaging your account while you might need liquid Hive to invest it into a project, send a tip, sell it or just power up to get more liquid rewards. @reward.app aims to bring this functionality to Hive.

What you have invented is a way to bring back bid bots to Hive. This will cause a race to the bottom for authors who try to outbid each other to entice opportunistic curators looking for maximum ROI.

The logic that powering down feels bad but liquid instead of powered up rewards don't escapes me.

Then, there's the problem of punishing late votes that I've mentioned above.

That "problem" won't go away by redistributing some portion of the author rewards to the curators of a post under rules where the early voter advantage does not apply. One of the stated goals of this project is motivating curators not to eschew voting on high quality posts because they've got votes on them already. I think an incentive to spread out the author rewards wider has done a lot of good on this platform. It's a lot less work to just concentrate votes on the same old high-earning authors. I'm afraid this project will undo some of the good that the EIP brought about.

Of course it happens at the cost of the author's earnings, but - if you provide additional reward for curators, you can expect more upvotes which will make up for the loses. Or not? That's the thing - we'll see :)

Curation is easy to automate.

I'm sure there are a lot of pros that will come out of this to outweigh the few cons it may be used as, one of them being a bid bot. Either way, it was inevitable for a service like this to exist at some point and depending on how we use it it can go a long way. Best case scenario it will encourage more manual curation and better and longer content instead of accounts throwing 2.5% votes all around. :p

Best case scenario it will encourage more manual curation and better and longer content instead of accounts throwing 2.5% votes all around. :p

Guess why they are doing it. Btw, I see two different ways to fix the problem:

  • rid off of the curation curves and all penalties for early/late voting and low post payout

or

  • let them continue this crazy and toxic race for curation awards, which doesn't have anything to do with the real manual curation and create a Super Power for those who want to curate manually. This Super Power would be staked for 13 month and will always get back 50% from vote value

Thing is that this race ends at some point, it's game theory that has been discussed quite a few times. Say a very popular and consistent author would start seeing front-runners front-running the front-runners until the very early votes are so early that the penalty doesn't make it worth the returns.

Hmm, your 2nd idea would discourage content discovery which is why the curve exists in the first place. The problem is people get lazy and not many check the "new" of all posts, with communities it is getting better as more curators are focusing on their own communities and being able to not miss many posts. This is also why we want to focus on bringing more niche communities up the ranks with our curation efforts of OCD so that newcomers that join don't post outside of communities but have a big variety to choose from early on and find their "place".

@reward.app does balance out the early voting a little bit and we could experiment some more with how the "extra" curation rewards are calculated to discourage early voters a bit more. I think with the EIP but with 25/75 this experiment would've worked better as it would've given us a bigger range to work with to switch up how we distribute curation but that's out of our control right now.

If anything it will add some more simulations and testing to new parameters to maybe help in a future hardfork if we come up with better solutions for content discovery. There's a lot of other pros to it and that's a big reason I decided to go forward with it but I understand the skepticism at first glance.

What I'm saying is: I just want to read the posts, upvote the ones I like and get back 50% from my vote value.
Why autovoters who don't even read posts, do profit from my investment? Should I invest more in Hive, once I know this fact?
You are trying to fix the issue without any changes to blockchain code. I understand your intentions. I wish you good luck, but it will be hard to achieve your goals

Frankly speaking a business model on broken code. Curation curves are complex for a normal "facebook"+twitter user whom they want to onboard here.

And I think very few has has interest in promoting the manual curation and every effort is done to penalize the authors only though claimed backbone of a blogging system but I doubt in practice.

Yeah, in curation area we are still running Ned's code. Let's hope HMT won't make same mistake

There have been a lot of talks about adjustable curation rewards and it would basically create the same race to the bottom effect and one of the biggest reasons against it. I really think 50/50 is a good balance to incentivize curators to curate more organically (never will be perfect) and reward authors.

Based on my ten month experience of the current system, I think it works very well on balance.

I see your point... but.

The reason this wont turn into anything as bad as a bid bot is because... we have free downvotes and curation rewards oscillate so much that 4% means little to nothing.
If you want to maximize picking a good curation target far outweighs the gain from those 4%.

I see this more of a token of appreciation then anything else.
The benefit is on the author side actually imo. Not having to powerdown has value and id say that value is greater then the 4% loss.

Agree completely and must let you know that you have articulated it perfectly and constructively.

I think the downvote button will be very useful for abusers who will take enormous profits from this. The idea is great after all

I think an incentive to spread out the author rewards wider has done a lot of good on this platform.

It has but a lot of it is being done for the wrong reasons. If you check some big accounts you will quickly notice that many vote on posts that have no votes cast before them, by that I mean no votes at all and they often don't get any additional votes after either. These accounts are already maximizing their curation rewards but don't realize that some of these posts have not received any votes for a reason (or don't care to realize), yet when they stumble upon better content that has 0.10-1$ in rewards they won't vote because they know a portion of their returns will go to those who voted for 0.10-1$. It's really backward, in one way they're focused on voting 100x 10% votes per day which you'd think is great for the platform but on the other hand as soon as some of the regular accounts generating good content start to get some front-runners and bots the bigger accounts are going to discontinue curating them.

Of course as someone who's focused for years now to curate new authors and their content I enjoy this distribution but knowing it's being done for the wrong reasons and often times votes being cast on garbage content just because it has no front-runners it's not doing the platform well. At the same time authors are realizing this, they know that if say @bigaccount1 votes on their post there's no way @bigaccount2 or @mediumsizedaccount1 is going to add another vote on their post. What do you think this will encourage? Authors start to write content with a certain amount of effort just to be good enough to receive one of those big votes or they create several accounts so they can post more short posts daily to receive more votes from @bigaccount1 without them knowing - sockpuppets.

As I mentioned in my post, there's a lot of things we'd want to accomplish and while we understand there are some drawbacks to this experiment we hope that the majority of changes will be positive and if there's ever anything we can add to make sure things won't get abused we're going to see to it to do so.

Well talking about sockpuppets... If you have several topics you write about one racing cars one swimming one making lamps if you do that on one blog it's not CEO Google friendly and readers also don't want to read about swimming if they want to read about racing. It's just another blog with another topic. No sock puppet in my opinion. Few years back it would be advised to talk about one topic on steem. 😉

At the same time authors are realizing this, they know that if say @bigaccount1 votes on their post there's no way @bigaccount2 or @mediumsizedaccount1 is going to add another vote on their post. What do you think this will encourage? Authors start to write content with a certain amount of effort just to be good enough to receive one of those big votes or they create several accounts so they can post more short posts daily to receive more votes from @bigaccount1 without them knowing - sockpuppets.

Anyone can already post as many posts as they could possibly want using a single account. There is no advantage to using sock puppet accounts for the purposes of being able to post a greater quantity of content. On the contrary, using several accounts for posting content comes at a distinct disadvantage. The alt accounts do not have any history of engagement, few to no followers, nor do they have any autovotes set on them. Far fewer curators, large or small will ever see the posts.

Also, isn't the whole point of rewarding content just that - rewarding content regardless of who authored it? In my opinion, one of the biggest problems of Hive in terms of content is the sheer lack of it. When I go to Quora to answer questions to ask them myself, I find an astonishing volume of content I could easily spend days or weeks engaging without exhausting interesting material. In contrast, Quello has such a dearth of content that there is very little to catch anybody's interest.

This will cause a race to the bottom for authors who try to outbid each other to entice opportunistic curators looking for maximum ROI.

Curators don't know the additional curators share - they can be easily outplayed by authors. We will also allow users to set it to random.

We already have many curators who seek max ROI, voting the same users all the time. One can argue that we level the field a little by allowing more users to enter the game.

Curation is easy to automate.

That's why we're throwing in some chaos :)

"This will cause a race to the bottom for authors who try to outbid each other to entice opportunistic curators looking for maximum ROI."

Curators don't know the additional curators share - they can be easily outplayed by authors. We will also allow users to set it to random.

They can read the on-chain messages sent to you in which the authors specify the number.

We already have many curators who seek max ROI, voting the same users all the time. One can argue that we level the field a little by allowing more users to enter the game.

It's a common misunderstanding that the highest ROI is achieved by always voting the highly rewarded posts. That is far from the case. So long as the rewards are above 20 HIVE or something, the curve tax is not an issue. Also, highly rewarded posts tend to have a lot of different curators voting on them trying to front run each other.

"Curation is easy to automate."

That's why we're throwing in some chaos :)

It's still easy to automate.

By the way, adding complexity will only benefit the most astute maximizers.

They can read the on-chain messages sent to you in which the authors specify the number

That's why we can have memo encryption and setting this trough website.

It's a common misunderstanding that the highest ROI is achieved by always voting the highly rewarded posts.

Of course, but it's most predictable which is good enough for many automated curators. That's why you see the same authors in trending so often.

Curation is already automated for many users, @reward.app won't change it. But we're adding something new and will observe the results. We have ways to make the curation more profitable for both manual curators and automated ones.

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a c0mputer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $9391 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here................... http://Easynet1.com

This basically mimics publish0x functionality? Pretty clever.

Wow, I don't know their system, will check it out, thanks :)

From I read (scanned) you give authors the ability to choose rewards ie 30% author and 70% curator. Which is what publish0x does but for voters as in when I vote I can choose to give the person 30% and keep 70% of the public reward pool which I don't think relies on personal stake. Kinda.

Setting post for 100% curation reward seems to me like boosting post to trending page without paying anyone for votes :D
That's kinda interesting and for me it can be game changer.

A comment at the end of the post what parameters autor set for payout definitely help decide, if we still will have good curation for post, which have bunch of rewards.

New era of manual post snipers? It can be possible.

Good day :)

I have a feeling that a few of the tribe tokens are not being distributed following the setting of reward.app as a beneficiary.

image.png

https://hive-engine.com/?p=balances&a=reward.app

Wow, so HE coins follow the beneficiary setting. Will need to fix that :)

From what I see, not all. PAL seems to ignore, but I've not had any LEO or NEOXIAN for a few weeks now!

This is where our true ROI lays in! Rekt!

I'm on strike until paid my tokens!

Oh yeah? We don't negotiate with strikers, you're fired from shilling our shit!

Fired, and wealthier :P

#onlyonhive

that's a new idea for a community, shit that only happens on hive

I was just curious what will happen to tribe token payouts if we set the beneficiary?

No idea :D need to check if beneficiary also applies to tribe tokens (probably not).

Hehe will take a look when I try it

So this could be a way to put something on trending quite easily. Hate post, pseudoscience, flat-earth, conspiracy theory. Just set it at 100% to curation and enjoy the curation race. You can self-vote at 100% too.

You said yes we can downvote them. But won’t make me popular. I downvote a lot but it is not an easy thing to do.

Can you comment on this potential abuse?

I have the best of this platform in my mind. And I have taken a lot of risk so it is my job to understand the potential abuse.

If this kind of abuse will start to happen, we can:

  • set max cap at 80% for curators
  • burn part of the rewards

hi @cardboard

I wonder - why idea of changing power down period from 13 weeks to 4 weeks is bad if more tools similar to @likwid are being introduced. Tools, which only purpose is escape this "13 weeks trap".

I'm seriously unsure what to think about this tool. As some users pointed out - this may bring another wave of bidbots :(

Yours, Piotr

I have a question;

The memo action has to happen for each new post?

No, your setting is saved in db :) but you can always change it.

got it! Thank you! :)

Hola @cardboard… He elegido tu post para mi iniciativa diaria de reblogear. Este es mi aporte para Hive…
Sigamos trabajando y aportando ideas para crecer en Hive!...
alegria.jpg
Hello @cardboard... I have chosen your post for my daily reblogging initiative. This is my contribution to Hive...
Let's keep working and giving ideas to grow in Hive!

I think I get the general idea behind, but it made me wonder, how hard it is going to be to code a bot that will spot those posts with the beneficiaries set and vote only those posts for the max profit?

Continuing that line of thought.. it will open a new opportunity to those spammy and abusive accounts to get automated votes, just because the beneficiary is set.

Then, there's the problem of punishing late votes that I've mentioned above.

Why not extending the 5 min window? As a curator t is really short time to actually go find the post, read it, check for plag and vote it. It just makes manual curation that much harder.
With longer voting window older posts (like few hours old) would still have the same opportunity to receive votes as the new ones. This would help to find the deserving posts, not just vote new, because it is new no matter the quality.

I think I get the general idea behind, but it made me wonder, how hard it is going to be to code a bot that will spot those posts with the beneficiaries set and vote only those posts for the max profit?

Remember that author can set the additional curators share to 0% :)

Continuing that line of thought.. it will open a new opportunity to those spammy and abusive accounts to get automated votes, just because the beneficiary is set.

We can downvote those too.

Why not extending the 5 min window?

Well, the 5 min windows doesn't mean that you should vote in those 5 minutes- quite the opposite. And yes, this will work like you mentioned, it's gonna be still worth to vote for old posts / posts that already get good reward. At least more than now.

Remember that author can set the additional curators share to 0% :)

They can. But lots will set higher too I bet, so averagely it will still be better than voting the old fashioned posts?

the 5 min windows doesn't mean that you should vote in those 5 minutes- quite the opposite.

The problem is that a lot of people do vote in the 5 min. Also very big accounts vote in that time. So if I vote later, my curation rewards are going down and down... So I don't have to, but I kind of have to :)

What a joke
Do people not see how this bubble grows NOT.
BECAUSE internally you think it's just about rewards.

What about engagement?
The fact you can just vote AND reply to a blog post without even reading it is embarrassing for a platform campaigning to attract Twitter.

The only posts that attract discussion too are ones where problems need fixing.
Once done everyone returns to their bubble for rewards.

When moon yo!

Chill. Think that reward pool is just a way to distribute the tokens. Then we need to figure a way to give them value.

Also:

The fact you can just vote AND reply to a blog post without even reading

Welcome to like... world :D Because you can comment something without reading not only on hive :D

So repeat mainstream!

I got it...

Yet pretend....

"The mainstream will come...
Because we.. aRe dIfFeReNt.."

You're in a bubble man.

Naturally, when one is in a bubblesphere.
A constricted one.
Ones reflection upon them walls..

Is highly distorted.

You're writing as if you're trying to fit the words in a bubble.

Loading...

I would like to give this a try. So if I make a post, should I do this?

image.png

TIA

Interesting new service @cardboard / @acidyo. Reading "between the lines," it would lead one to believe this is a proposed "workaround" from some of the perceived limitations of HF 21 / 22.

If so, what are your thoughts on the prospect of simply addressing these with some EIP changes in the next HF?

Beyond that, my general impression is the use of @reward.app adds another layer(s) of complexity, which takes us in the opposite direction from what would likely help us with newcomers.

So ...

If there is a better and more accommodating team on the Hive blockchain that the @peakd team, I am unaware of them. I would suggest you get with them and, if they are agreeable, "hide" as much of this complexity inside PeakD as possible ...

My $0.02 ... 👋

That's the plan ;)

I am wondering how well this will work for me as I only earn 9-13 a post.

If you have set the additional curator rewards into 4% (by default) then you're actually doing a 48%/52% split of rewards from the original 50/50. 52% goes to the curators, 48% of your regular $9-$13 a post will be yours.

The above statement will become true if you set @reward.app as a beneficiary at 100% to your posts.

I tried setting it in Peakd and it wouldn't let me. I'll try in the next post

Excellent work. I hope it is eventually hardforked into the blockchain.
I guess for now people can lie about their settings since there is no way to check without looking at their wallet to see the setting change. You could always send a confirmation transfer back (after charging a generous fee).

I like the idea of setting and experimenting with different reward curves. Maybe an order independent reward curve would be better on Hive too.

Congratulations @cardboard! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You received more than 10000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 15000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

Introducing the HiveBuzz API for applications and websites
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!

I am definitely going to try this. Thank you for the info!

The curator's share is set to 100% on this post :)

So if I give this a 100% upvote, it's like giving myself a 100% upvote?

From reward point of view - kinda yes, but you also give visibility to the post, which is important for me :)

I missed the "visiblity +promotion factor" acidiyo post.

But it is still affected by curation effects I think and later, there could be a host of other factors that come into play.

You mean it could be worth even more to me?