Under the current system, someone who votes with redfish or minnow status is lucky to get 10% of their vote values returned, while the whales enjoy 120% or more of their vote values returned in curation. How is that even remotely fair? Hopefully that kind of inequity gets fixed in the next HF.
Curation should NOT be complicated. If you are supposed to get 50% back, then make it so! Don't say it is so, but in reality skew the algorithm to favour the whale votes and rob the little votes. And if all votes had a set value (not determined by cumulative vote values), the idea of voting for trending posts is removed. Fixing these voting issues will do wonders for adoption.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
sure, they are "lucky" to get 10% back as curation rewards if they are not curating.
meanwhile it favors the exact opposite of what you describe - smaller votes are easier to gain much higher % from curation than larger votes, which is why most of the best curators never use 100% votes unless the post is really worth it. Now they can just dump 100% on basically anything and have no incentive to spread out to vote on the little guys, because the reverse auction was THE ONLY THING that prevented everyone from piling onto the same giant accounts for curation rewards - as is exactly why it existed in the first place.
I don't know where you get your information from. I haven't seen the code used to derive the results, but I can look at what the little people get from their curation and what the big votes get from theirs by using Hivetasks to check people's accounts.
As for the 5-minute penalty: I doubt that makes much of a difference if you have to wait 5 minutes or if you can vote immediately. Auto-voters don't mind waiting. Just set your 'follow' to accounts you know get whale votes and you are good to go. All votes get amplified if there is a big reward on any given post, making the rich get richer while the little people get robbed of the reward pool's shrunken size. The entire system is messed up and needs to be changed.
If all votes, regardless of HP, had a fixed value from a scale of 1 to 10 then the voter could give a larger or smaller vote based on perceived vale of the content, yet the value of the vote is irrelevant to the voter's HP.
5-minute penalty: I doubt that makes much of a differenceI'm sorry, but this says more about your understanding than you know. It made a MASSIVE difference.
It was the primary incentive for dispersion, and the primary anti-stagnation mechanic. It was the bunker-buster for autovotes, the only reason I ever had to check on anything, update anything, or think about anything.
I expect autovoting to become even more prevalent once people notice the changes, and I expect closed-circuit circlejerking to become twice as common if the possibility of higher curation returns are "fixed". Meanwhile an entire week of posts were flagged as curation-forfeited and anyone aware has been profiting enough to completely negate any detriment they might incur. I literally voted down the list of top payouts like a checklist to get higher % returns than anyone that has ever done real curation.
Just because something needs to be changed in order to be improved, doesn't mean changing it is an improvement by default. I can't say for certain if the overall picture is better or worse since so much of it is sentiment-based and depends on the nature of people involved, but from my perspective that is the only advantage of the change - sentiment.
scale of 1 to 10 to give a larger or smaller voteYou can already scale voting weight, and most UI will show this as a slider once you reach 500 or 1000 HP, because otherwise it's splitting dust.
however, this notion:
value of the vote is irrelevant to the voter's HPis complete nonsense, because anyone can make 1000+ accounts.
anything done to help "the little guy" also helps "the bot army".
maybe you meant something else by that, I'm not sure.
as for
where you get your information froma 6-digit number of votes has given me a little experience.
Go ahead and try making 1,000 accounts with 142 HP each. See if you can earn any curation rewards at all with so little HP. Then you will understand what I'm talking about.
Been there, done that.
Are you suggesting that making it easier would be an improvement?
In that case, a braindead staking system replacing curation would be a good start, because micromanaging and optimizing automation with reverse auction involved was 100 times harder than it is now. So the next thing people need to whine about is dust payouts until they're "rounded up" and just like magic there will be a massive influx of new accounts. Not new people, but we can pretend they are people.
notion of vote value being irrelevant to the voter's HP is nonsense
this is like saying blank account with no HP should have infinite RC
misunderstanding of what makes steem/hive viable in the first place
In the meantime the 'everyone's a winner' mentality for deleting curation is going to start corroding the lease market until the highest bids are all the self-voting circlejerk closed systems that are more prone to dumping all their hive than basically any other category of person, because curators can no longer outbid and compete with them consistently, which means the circlejerking operations just became a lot more profitable.
I don't know... it seems no matter what one does, someone will figure out how to abuse the system. All I know is that the current system penalizes the little guy and rewards those who already have plenty. If the little guys were given a fair share, I think there would be more on-boarding of new people. As it currently stands, the small account votes are worth nothing and all those dust votes are collected and given to someone. Getting rid of the 2-cent cut-off would be a good start. At least the small accounts would then have a chance of growing, albeit slowly. The other aspect I would like to see changed is that everyone gets an equivalent share of their curation rewards; those with more HP should not get exponentially more of the pot than the small accounts and voting on popular (large payout) articles should have no relevance to how much of a cut you get. That way, there is no need to vote for the popular articles and one could safely vote for what you really like rather than vote for the biggest returns.
I mostly agree on those points, especially the $0.02 cutoff, but I think there needs to be a way for someone somewhere to get higher returns from curation than they would get by self-voting, so that they can stabilize the lease market and make the worst kind of abuse much less profitable (this is what I was doing before the change).
Unfortunately for anyone that thinks things have just improved, as far as I can tell it's only true for the lowest possible ranges of curation, and anyone that was getting 10%+ has just been dragged down into that range. I'll be looking for the silver lining and if there is one, I'll find it. The benefits seem human-centric in the sense that they damage the optimal behaviors, turn the game theory more towards the exploits, but offer positive sentiments along the way and some extra freedom. I think being able to vote on whatever you want and getting the same return is certainly a positive for usability, but it is no longer "curation" and that's the problem I have with it, because those systems existed for very good reasons, and it seems like they were deleted rather than improved. (just to be clear, I don't think the old way was perfect, but I think it was in the ballpark)
Other than that, small accounts will always have small voting rewards, it doesn't make sense in any other way, because the rewards have to be % based to avoid bot army incentives. Even something as small as a penny being added as a flat value bonus would be most likely be exploited. The trick I think, is to make the exploit into something positive, a system where the optimal behavior is also beneficial, and I don't see things moving in that direction if people can just mindlessly vote through trending to get the same rewards as anyone else. Honestly it's so silly that I keep second-guessing myself to wonder what exactly I have missed.