Does your opinion change if SMTs become the earning currency on applications rather than Steem directly? Would this incentivize applications to power up and be able to benefit more since there is less top-end abuse?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I like to think of SMTs as linked to dApps but also to Communities, with potentially many Communities having their own SMT reward token. Allowing different reward curves for each SMT would be very useful, allowing each dApp / Community flexibility in what they are trying to incentivise / achieve.
The problem for Steem is that it is trying to be many things at once. We want to find and reward the best content (i.e. content creation, a bit like youtube?) but we also want to incentivise mass adoption with many users and lots of engagement (i.e. social network, a bit like facebook?). The CLRC works towards the former (by aiming to remove some abuse, thus making it more likely rewards head to good content) but at the expense of the latter.
A Community / dApp that was only interested in rewarding the best content, or which wanted some form of one-person-one-vote functionality in addition to a dPoS vote functionality (i.e. a reason to remove sybil issues) would probably find the CLRC very useful.
Would this be a bad thing at this stage of the game considering while any want mass adoption now, are we actually ready for it?
Definitely.
I think this would be very useful for continued development of many kinds.
I think that if the idea of the EIP is focus on good content but to sacrifice mass adoption efforts / comments and engagement / the idea of Steem as a social network then that should be made very clear in the proposal. That would be a pretty big pivot.
In my view it's a bad move.
I don't think that is the idea, by the way, I think that solutions have been sought to a particular set of problems but without fully considering the other problems that could arise.
Also in general on abuse I think that if you aim to prevent people obtaining 90%-100% of vote value on things like:
Then accounts will obtain 90%-100% of vote value through:
In the end a vote has value and people will find ingenious ways to extract that value to its fullest extent. The harder it is to do just increases the marginal cut to middle-men for its organisation.
Every system is gameable in some way isn't it?
Yes! This is one of the reasons I like flat curation with the curation slider at the discretion of the voter. It removes all the incentives and just lets people vote for the content they like.
That is an experiement I have wanted to have run for 1.5 years too but I think it has less chance of happening.