I've lost a lot of hope since steemit said the rich will be getting richer and screw the little guys.
Props to them for at least being honest this time, but the people that were here for a few pennies a day are out, and those that were making dollars now get pennies?
I don't think this place thrives only rewarding sycophants of those that already have steem.
Nobody, with their dignity intact, agrees to play by those rules, imo.
Nobody said that. In fact, everyone is getting poorer at this rate.
What has been said is these are steps which a significant number of Steem stakeholders (and certainly not all whales or even close) believe can start to make a difference in righting the ship. We may all turn out to be wrong for whatever reasons, but the effort is sincere.
Literally no one is trying to get rich or richer by shifting a few percent of token rewards around on an asset depreciating by 90% per year. That's absurd.
Then how do you explain an exponential sublinear curve?
Didn't we just fork an exponential curve out because it favored the rich too much?
Now we are gonna fork one back in, except that this time the curve punishes the poor for being poor?
How did 20 steem become the cut off and not 3?
What I got from this admission that posts with 20 steem will be getting more, and those getting less than 20 steem will be getting less, is that those that were here for the pennies can fly a kite and those that were here for the couple dollars can now have pennies.
Irregardless of how that impacts what is left of the community.
It is still premature to nail the top on the coffin, atp, downvoting can still ride in to save the day.
I'd say that when you tell your workers to like it, or lump it, and decrease wages 40%, what do you expect?
Until we appeal to the everyman, we are treading water in a riptide, imo.
I still contend that the whale experiment with the n2 was as good as it gets.
Instead of making thousands of users happy, maybe prompting them to store value in steem because they counted in the math, the interests of a very few were protected at the cost of mass adoption.
I know the early adopters were told they could use steem as their personal atm and that it was sustainable to remove max rewards, but clearly they were misled.
The sooner we help whomever to get over that misconception, the better, imo.
I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase. The curve is superlinear at every point (adding 1% rshares/votes adds >1% share of the pool), however it converges to linear.
The entire process is an exercise in balancing various considerations in a dynamic system, not just looking at shifting a few percent of rewards given an assumption of everything else being static.
The curve itself is in fact pretty mild and close to linear overall. Payouts below about 16 STEEM (I guess there are different estimates as this is approximate and I can't say that with some different assumptions 20 is definitely wrong) will get somewhat less than linear and those above will get somewhat more than linear but this is a matter of percentages and is not extreme.
The overall effect is actually reasonably close to the n^2 whale experiment that you liked where there is still a degree of superlinearity but it is muted to the point that the largest stakeholders and vote concentrators can't take effectively (nearly) all of the rewards.
There are no wages being paid here and if there once were (which there weren't, this is a distribution method for a token intended to help the token accrue value) they've already been reduced by 99%. Arguing over protecting the remaining 1% "wages" at the expense of restructuring and rebalancing the entire system to where it at least might work better and avoid another 99% decline is quite pointless.
Ok, so now the curve resides below linear and moves towards it.
That isn't sublinear?
At this point, this is better than nothing.
Maybe it brings balance to a highly contentious debate.
The devil will be in details that won't be readily apparent for some time after the fork.
Does 7 days balance the moving parts of the math, or will it potentially take longer?
Not in mathematical terms. It is superlinear because it always grows faster than linear. However, the degree to which it grows faster than linear decreases. Let's not get too caught up in the terminology though.
Agree
Ok, a few months for everybody to adjust.
At what point do we look at fixing the decision to run off ~90% of authors?
Who is going to continue to post when the platform cuts their incentive to do so to zero?
What incentive do the remaining/benefitting authors have to reduce their rewards to attract adoption?
At what point did we stop trying to attract everyman
bloggers?
Should we stop claiming to be a blogging platform for everybody and start letting people know that long haired freaky people need not apply for accounts?
If rewards never reach linear, only closely approach it, then the rewards that were linear are now less than linear, no?
That superlinearity is now down for steem poor people instead of up for steem rich people.
Equating to bringing back an evil doppleganger of the n2.
That only the authors that get less than 20 steem experience the superlinearity, and that experience is to see their rewards go down, sounds like a curve that favors those that are already established to the detriment of the newbs.
Which sounds like a doubling down of favoring the already favored under the current rules to the loss of everybody else.
How much sp is going to be required to make a solo vote larger than dust on a comment?
That number is going up alot, yes?
I've been very fortunate to have picked up a benefactor, but at 15 steem, my rewards are going down.
Unless the flagging raises what is available from the pool, I see most folks calling it a wrap.
That may take awhile to live down.
Two forks that killed adoption is a tall hurdle to surmount.
I'd suggest that that 20 steem be adjusted lower before most of our authors throw in the towel.
Running off 90% of the authors (as well as non-author users) is mostly a function of the value declining by 99% and the overall value proposition being weak IMO.
That being said, if hypothetically 90% of the authors did leave, the rest would see their rewards increase by 10x. It is self-correcting in that sense.
There is no difference. That is the exact same thing stated two different ways.
This is not true. Every single vote has non-linearity (whether we call it super- or sub-linearity). The cutoff point of 16-20 is a rough estimate of where things will be similar in some sense to the status quo, but this depends a lot on how voting behavior may change,
As I noted earlier, the degree of non-linearity is somewhat modest. Even at the very bottom (near zero), the relative value is something like 50%, which is much much less of a non-linearity than existed under n^2, even with the whale experiment. At modestly less than the 16-20 range, say 10, the non-linearity is still there but it is much smaller. I don't know the number but I might guess at say 10%.
As I understand it, something in the neighborhood of 2x. Solo votes aren't really the point though. Voting is supposed to be a consensus process. i.e. Go ahead and put your vote on there even if it doesn't reach non-dust. The effect of that is another minnow can add their vote and perhaps get to non-dust, which they wouldn't be able to do alone. If the comment is truly meritorious, we should expect more than one voter to think so.
Solo voting is almost synonymous with milking. It's what we have to get away from, not what we have to protect.
Overall I think we will have to see how things work out including the knock-on effects of more downvotes (which redirect rewards from that being downvoted to everything else, including potentially low-vote content, offsetting some of the above effects), etc.