RE: Are You Seeing the Truth? What Is Your Vision of Steem?

[smooth]

To amplify a bit what you said...the 2x gap is much, much smaller than currently. Curation currently yields around 15% (after factoring in the typical effect of the reverse auction), meaning the ratio between self-voting and curation is about 7x. Even if the effect of the reverse auction were diminished or removed, it would still be 4x. I agree with you that is too high and even 2x may still be too high. We might need to go to a higher curation percentage which would narrow the gap further (for example, 90% curation would reduce it to about 1.1x).

However, before we go that far we should certainly try moving way from 7x first. So I agree with the 50% part of the proposal.

Comments

[kevinwong]

I've written to @dwinblood below about this, not sure if it checks out. 2x may be justifiable. I think anything more than 50% is gonna have a hard time with the author-types. 90% is leaving almost nothing for them (although I could see that it encourages way more curation than authoring, and probably closer to the spread of user types in any social content platform)

Putting it simply, getting back ~50% of votes on average is more likely to get curation going and less self-voting / vote trading because it’s already part of the 50/50 act in each vote.

Of course, many may still exercise 100% of their votes back for themselves directly or indirectly, at least the gap is only at most 2x more than anyone engaging in curation.

Shrinking the gap to 2x max between curation vs selfvoting, I’d say it’s much more reasonable, and 2x more than makes up for the benefits of actually building a social network vs a user just self-voting/vote-trading away.

edit: woops just realised this is the @dwinblood thread

[smooth]

more than 50% is gonna have a hard time with the author-types

Okay, "author types" are part of the community. Their opinion matters, but does that mean they have a veto?

I don't know if >50% is needed. But if it is needed to make the system work, what do we prefer? A system that doesn't work or pissing off the author types? I'll take the lesser evil if necessary,