in #steem5 years ago (edited)


What are the Economic Goals ?

To get people to vote in a way that honestly reflects their own opinion of a post's appeal with as little negative side effects as possible. Honest voting is imperative for us to succeed as a content discovery and rewards social media platform.

What's the Current Problem?

The current economy is paying content indifferent voting behavior (self voting, vote selling to bid bots, etc.) 4x more than honest curation. This has resulted in an increasing number of stakeholders participating in the former over the latter over time. Some estimates have active SP participating in honest voting at lower than 25% currently. A single glance at trending shows you the gravity of the problem.

What's Being Proposed In The EIP?

The exact numbers have yet to be finalized, but we're likely gravitating towards 50% curation, 25% free downvotes and a convergent linear curve. You can read more about the curve on @vandeberg's post here.

Why Not Make One Change at a Time ?

Because every measure has negative side effects that increase as you turn up the dial. By using multiple measures which compliment each other, we can effectively minimize negative side effects while hopefully still overhaul the status quo voting behavior into one that generally reflects honest opinions on content.

Many before us have considered these measures independently. @kevinwong and I mainly contributed by being among the first to view this as a problem of optimizing economic policy - understanding how multiple measures compliment each other and anticipating a desirable set of behaviors at equilibrium while being sensitive to the extent of negative side effects. We made the recommendation of all 3 measures and their ballpark values (and received immense help from @justinw and @vandeberg for improving our initial curve) which is likely why you see our names associated with the EIP.

What Are the Negative Side Effects of Each Measure?

Curation - On paper, less money going to content creators. (At much higher levels, content creators actually get less in practice too)

Free Downvotes - Modest increase in toxicity anticipated at the recommended amount. (At extreme levels, collusive profit driven downvote cabals and edge case of rewards pool being blocked or nearly blocked)

Convergent Linear - Introduces some level of inequality at the very low end of post rewards. (At extreme level it leads to collusive 'circle jerking' and piling on, as seen under n^2)

Under our recommendations we expect the negative side effects to be moderate (no where near the extremes). We've taken great care to minimize them while hopefully retaining sufficient incentive to compel most actors to vote honestly across the entire system.

How do you Expect These Measures To Work Together to Encourage Honest Voting?

By increasing curation to 50%, we've instantly decreased the profit gap between content indifferent voting and honest voting from 4x to 2x.

A moderate amount of free downvotes is likely further required to deter dishonest voting. At 25% free downvotes and 50% curation, for every abuser, it'll take exactly TWO same sized stakeholders to bring their votes down to average (mean) curation value. That means, we'll need two good actors for each bad actor to bring their rewards down to a point where they might as well be curating honestly (roughly speaking).

Convergent Linear forces all profitable voting behavior into the light to be assessed by voters by rendering posts or comments at the very low end of payouts less profitable. Otherwise, schemes revolving around hiding self votes in spam in an effort to evade downvotes would likely take place.

But Aren't You One of the Bad Actors Traf, Ya Cunt?

There are game theoretical reasons why individual good acts are deterred under a heavily flawed economic system. I can spend $6000 a month fighting abuse with the full knowledge that at least 75% of that money is just flowing into the pockets of others doing the exact same thing.

It's just too expensive and too futile to do anything 'good' in a broken economy. Knowing this, most of us capitulate and choose to just maximize our own stake to mitigate the negative price effects of a failing platform and in the process we make it worse. This is why we desperately need the EIP. I'll likely be switching sides once that's introduced.

We don't create a set of economic rules that rely on good people to be altruistic for the system to work. We create a set of economic rules that force bad people to do good things in order to be profitable.

Also, there's no need for that kind of language.

How Do You Think The EIP Will Affect Self Voters Like Yourself?

We'd be destroyed. That's the idea. And it'll likely have a positive cascading effect.

Currently, I know it'll cost someone $200 a day to take my rewards away only to have most of it go to others just like me. So I doubt they'll bother, if they do, I doubt they'll keep it up and if they do, I can always just sell to a bunch of bid bots and be largely immune from attack. This common knowledge of both the expensive cost and futility of fighting against dishonest voting paralyses the entire system from self correcting.

Under the EIP, it'll only take slightly more than two others of similar stake to my own to kick my rewards down to the point where I'd be making more curating honestly. And because I know it doesn't cost them a cent, they'll likely not relent. So the longer I keep it up, the more money I'd be wasting for not simply choosing to curate. Therefore, rationally, I would likely just curate honestly.

Now I wouldn't be too happy with not being able to self vote while others still do, so I'll likely use my free downvotes to combat other abusers. This also frees up the downvotes that were initially used on me to fight abuse elsewhere. The idea is to get a positive cascading effect and topple the current status quo of content indifferent voting practices.

Wouldn't a Higher Curation Rate Take More Money Away From Authors?

Highly unlikely at 50%, they'll likely see an significant increase in practice. Currently, an ever increasing lion's share of rewards are just going back to stakeholders either through self voting or vote selling. Basically if we're able to get people to mostly vote honestly, 50% of a large pie is much better than 75% of next to nothing for authors, which is what they're getting right now.

What Level of Increased Toxicity are We Looking At Due to 25% Free Downvotes?

There will always be disagreement and negative feelings are unavoidable when real money is involved on a platform like this. There will certainly be some downvotes that are used for purposes other than honest and legitimate reward disagreement, and even honest downvotes are not without contention.

However, the upside is a very real possibility of overhauling this entire platform and converting it into a largely functioning content discovery and rewards platform that it was always intended to be. Think about how many communities would flourish if 100m SP worth of votes flowed honestly towards content based on their general appeal. I believe some level of toxic downvotes are a reasonable price to pay for a real chance at a working platform instead of this shit show we have going on now.

Can You Guarantee The EIP Will Work?

No, and you don't want me to. As every measure here has negative side effects the more you crank it up, there's basically a trade off between how confident one can be of success and the negative side effects we'll incur. The initial numbers would likely need to be further adjusted and optimized over time.

That being said, I personally believe we'll likely see a very impactful and positive change in voting behavior once the EIP is introduced and the dust has settled, especially if it comes with a downvote pool that can be separately delegated from upvotes.

Ultimately, if it works, it was all me, if it doesn't, it was a team effort.

When will the EIP Come?

Hopefully the very next HF alongside SPS. The dev work is minimal and will likely not delay SPS.

Wow! Did You Create the Image for this Post All By Yourself? Are You a Professional Artist?

Fuck you :p

There are 3 pages

Oops dude. Your EIP under threat because of the scammer @ned, the retard shill @justinsunsteemit and their god damn liar exchange pals which are still fooling the gullibles.

Percentages, numbers.. pff. Geek speak. No offense to all you geeks out there. Those numbers scare people though. "Fifty percent! This is an outrage!" They'll say. "Nobody will work for that!" They'll say.

Screenshot (504).png

Good luck with convincing me nobody wants to create content for Youtube. Google takes 45%. A small handful of people get rich, buy yachts, do cocaine, while expensive hookers feed them grapes off the vine, or something (I heard. I haven't actually been to those parties.)

So anyway, those folks fearing the fifty don't really know what they're talking about.

We all want to see some measure of success here. I'm a content producer, I know the business, and I know it well (or a least well enough to feel comfortable in my own skin, here.)

Look at youtube. Success there consists of thousands of upvotes on videos. Usually far more views than "likes" or "dislikes", but look at those votes. The video I'm watching now has over 30000 likes. That's what we're shooting for here, correct? Giving folks a reason to upvote content after consuming it? Sounds reasonable.

So if my work receives 30000 upvotes because people want to vote again, and I get a penny per vote, I'm doing better than I am now, even if all I get is a 10 percent cut.

Do I even make sense? 50%, at first, might be tough. More people willing to vote means more money though, eventually. In my mind, that's the only way it can work.

Some folks out there will end up spending thousands "donating" to their favorite streamers or content producers. They get nothing in return, monetarily. People seem to think this behavior is the way of the future. I personally think it's idiotic when we have a platform like this place. Why throw that money away like these content producers are strippers working the pole when one could simply INVEST in a platform, support their favorite content producers by voting, get a return on their initial investment, plus have the opportunity to pull out with no strings attached at any time. That's like buying a lifelong subscription to HBO, for free, plus you get paid. How is this simplicity consistently flying over so many heads? How do the professionals here have trouble cleaning up that thought and selling it? That's the future of the entertainment industry right there, in my mind, and it shouldn't be so damn hard to get it right.

BLAH! I could go on and on for days about this shit. I'm rambling, I guess. Whatever. I'll just hit post for the fuck of it. Enjoy.

50% might be a difficult number to swallow, but the economics are entirely different from ad revenue ones people are use to

Right now they're getting 75% of piss all because they're losing it all to stakers getting their vote rewards back one way or another. The EIP is offering 50% of hopefully almost the entire pie. It'll be up to us to communicate this to people so they understand.

50% of a pumpkin is more than 75% of a grape.

Haha lol . A quote i’ll probably put on my wall !

Did you? :p

Haha when you say something on the blockchain it stays there forever, I guess this is a point in case lol. I haven’t done that yet but I definitely still should !

I'd totally vote for your wall if you did that, man.

Haha when you say something on the blockchain it stays there forever, I guess this is a point in case lol. I haven’t done that yet but I definitely still should !

I think you meant to respond to @acidyo but got me instead.

I cracked up laughing the moment I read this.

I must have been hungry when I wrote that.

On Golos ( Steem fork ) people can choose any curation percentage inside the corridor pre-set by witnesses. By now it's from 51% to 90%.
Still it didn't eliminate vote bying.

tell me a little more about them, why are people selling votes if they can just farm the 90% curation posts? is it something to do with their curation curve?

what other economic parameters do they have? free downvotes? what's their reward curve?

what's the overall economy there like?

Most of parameters there could be changed by witnesses without any hardfork.
By now the majority of top-witnesses have voted for linear rewards and zero minutes early voting penalty.
The actual consensus state can be viewed on explorer https://explorer.golos.io
My understanding why people are still bying votes is some sort of addiction to be on the Trending.
And actually it isn't always 50/90, because vitnesses votes are "split" between something like 25/75, 50/50 and 25/90, consequently the parameters can change a few times a day depending of who from the reserve witnesses is taken into the calculation.

I see

Then I disagree strongly with linear rewards and no curation auction window and full priced downvotes

I somewhat disagree with a curation slider too

Putting these all together, I'm not at all surprised at their economic failure

I don't think this economic failure have anything to do with the curation model.
And actually the failure of falling from $0.30 to $0.05 as it's the case of Golos isn't so much different to falling from $6.00 to $0.3 as it's for Steem.

That's like buying a lifelong subscription to HBO, for free, plus you get paid. How is this simplicity consistently flying over so many heads?

Love this.

This place needs more visionaries. Imagine you're sitting on the couch, enjoying your entertainment screen of choice. The device detects you're enjoying content, you've been glued to it for just the right amount of time. The device automatically upvotes, some money goes to those who produced the content. Consumers all get a piece of the pie after everything is said and done. More pie to those who bought the platinum subscription package. Sure, it was costly, could have bought a new Honda Civic instead, but when you get your "cable bill" in the mail, instead of "you owe us 89.99", you get "thank you for your attention, we've added 89.99 to your account balance." Works for e-books, music... everything. That's what we have here, most just don't realize it yet. Many don't even realize the entertainment industry generates billions yearly it seems. Shooting for basic facebook status messaging and photo sharing aspect is what some shoot for, thinking that's the future, but really those things are just designed to gather data. All smoke and mirrors used to push advertising into minds. Primitive and pointless. Sorry for the ramble.

Google takes 45%. A small handful of people get rich, buy yachts, do cocaine, while expensive hookers feed them grapes off the vine, or something

Sounds about right, but sometimes it goes very, very wrong.

Yeah, I think that's the party I got invited to but couldn't go because I had "plans." Ha! How is that story even real...

The troubled hooker, whose father is also a CEO of a large tech company in California...

The man, a 53-year-old monkey trainer...

That's comedic gold right there. That writer should be on Steemit.

Speaking of which... Isn't it fun how we're all back to talking in circles about some of the same things we've been talking in circles about since they invented the circle?

Do you really think someone invented the circle?

Posted using Partiko Android

Well, yeah, I mean, haven't you ever heard the legend? That guy went to work one day, started building squares on the production line, like any normal day before that. It was almost lunch break and he still had work to do, but was SUPER hungry, so he cut some corners to get the job done faster, and that square took on the shape of something like -----> O <----- one of those. The boss liked it and promoted him to lead shift supervisor, and you know what his name was? That's right!

Juan Circle

Fuck school, only told me shit

Thanks sir

Posted using Partiko Android

It seems you came back at the right time :), when we need things explained in a simple, interesting way, and with a little bit of comedy.

I am skeptically optimistic.

Skeptically optimistic is a good way to be.

Hello @trafalgar, I want to seek your attention.

Let me introduce myself, I am a cyber worker(you can call it that way) of church of God which is led by brother Eli Soriano to help Venezuela and Nigeria by upvoting their comment and post.


This is the confirmation in our official twitter account that I have the rights to post his video on Steemit.

Brother Eli Soriano and Brother Daniel Razon is philantrophist and running different charity programs.

I talked to him(brother eli) about Steemit when I am in brasil and he got interested of helping people with economic needs by upvoting them.

I am looking for your support by manually voting people who makes video comment in our topic which you can find in hashtag #broelisoriano. Or if you pleased, you can delegate on us so we can manually curate them all. We have many charity programs all over the globe so for the meantime we cannot focus all our resources to buy up steem power. Can I private message you?

It's like hitting two birds in one stone. Promoting the words of God by helping people. Also, bringing more people here on this wonderful blockchain.

If I'm honest it's quite a niche area, even if it's a worthy cause

So while I sympathize with the cause, I don't know if it's the best thing for the platform to be directly supporting this type of content right now, when our price is quite low. Right now I'm almost entirely concerned with supporting high quality content with the broadest general appeal.

Also, because the content within this tag is rarely in English, I'm not able to honestly appraise its appeal. I'm probably not suited for the task I'm afraid.

Thank you @trafalgar. I appreciate your response, I believe you are one of the best curator ever since I was starting things out here, you supported me.

If ever you have spare voting power please pay a visit on hashtag #broelisoriano. A heavy amount of upvotes is not necessary this time. Maybe a few cents of dollars upvote will be enough to put smile on their face living in this country.

We are full support to people who makes a video comment because I am reviewing their video and hearing them mention the date of the day and topic of the day. So I am rest assured that they are sincerely with us and not tricking or gaming the system.

Before HF21/HF22, I can easily upvote $0.50 but now my upvotes is not worth more than $0.25. A little help or a few cents will be enough to feed their child.

Thank you @trafalgar

Sir @trafalgar i dedicate this post for you, hope you are like it sir and consider your support.. Thanks sir


Good morning (here) @trafalgar. Your account is new to me and I am here commenting on your post due to following a “multiple links trail” of various resteems leading to it …

”That means, we'll need two good actors for each bad actor to bring their rewards down to a point where they might as well be curating honestly”

”I can spend $6000 a month fighting abuse with the full knowledge that at least 75% of that money is just flowing into the pockets of others doing the exact same thing.”

”It's just too expensive and too futile to do anything 'good' in a broken economy. Knowing this, most of us capitulate and choose to just maximize our own stake to mitigate the negative price effects of a failing platform and in the process we make it worse. This is why we desperately need the EIP. I'll likely be switching sides once that's introduced.”

[emphasis added mine}

I have chosen to invest my time in commenting (typically not a profitable use of my time …) on the basis on finding a lot of revealing input on what has been an enormously frustrating part of my “journey” on the Steem blockchain. You have chosen to “shine the light” on it in a way I have not found before now (of course it may be “in here” somewhere, but how do we find content in anything approaching a time-efficient manner …)

”We don't create a set of economic rules that rely on good people to be altruistic for the system to work. We create a set of economic rules that force bad people to do good things in order to be profitable.”

Rather than taking the “high road” and leading by example approach, ultimately, it appears to this Steemian you are proposing that the ancient WIIFM (what’s in it for me) principle will be our “salvation.” If this goes through, then I’m sure we’ll all be very interested to find out if that is in fact the case …

However, the upside is a very real possibility of overhauling this entire platform and converting it into a largely functioning content discovery and rewards platform that it was always intended to be.”

In the hope that you know (as a self-confessed “player,” if nothing else …) more about this subject than the vast majority of the rest of us “in here,” I have supported and resteemed your post. I sincerely appreciate your straight-up style and straightforward honesty in writing it.

Have a good day!

Rather than taking the “high road” and leading by example approach,

We did come from a place where many, including myself were voting honestly around HF 17-19. But slowly, the broken economy overwhelmed us and those of us who didn't outright leave capitulated into turning this place into a toilet.

If we lost the fight when things were far better, there's virtually no hope now of leading by example since a new equilibrium around self voting/vote selling has set in. I think the broken windows theory very much applies here. Our best chance is to reform the economic rules that lead to large scale misbehavior.

If this goes through, then I’m sure we’ll all be very interested to find out if that is in fact the case …

As am I

First @trafalgar, let me thank you for investing the time to reply. Frankly, I am not accustomed to that, from a “whale.” “In here” for over a year now, most of the time, my experience has not been that favorable when corresponding with a “whale” …

”I think the broken windows theory very much applies here. Our best chance is to reform the economic rules that lead to large scale misbehavior.”

You have made a valid case, to my mind, for the point of your post – arguing in favor of these proposed changes. And, I accept your specific point here since, as I said to begin with, presumably you would know far better than most. It is your “straight up” and candid style which is refreshing to me, so thank you for that as well.

At the end of it all, as I have written about before in my own posts, I suppose some like the use of the word “pioneers” in describing what we are going through. “Pioneers” in what? Learning firsthand what it is like to experience the “utopia” of a decentralized blockchain and all that is really happening vs. the “marketing hype” about what might happen. At the core of it, it is dealing with human nature. In all of its “glory” and how to “manage” that, when no one really has any authority “in here” to direct change vs. affect change …

We’ll find out together what the “Top 20” decide is the best course, going forward, as God knows there is a considerable problem which needs an effective solution to address it. The sooner the better …

Have a good day @trafalgar!

Resteemed, your honesty is refreshing and while I know this is contentious I just can't see things getting worse.

I listened to a heated convo on that bastard discord earlier today and you of course were brought up as the discussion was about why EIP now?

It seemed like a crazy idea when first introduced by you collaborators but some feel it's recently gained traction due to an overall sense of panic.

I think it's valid to point out that proposing a new economics model that's the lesser of two evils is an admission that it cannot be more broken than it is currently.

This is difficult to come to terms with. But, as a relatively new user that is in the minority as an adopter attracted by a censorship resistant platform that offers a steep learning curve but rewarding edification in all things crypto I see this as a step to less of a plutocracy.

As it is nobody like myself will ever stick around here as I have. I feel I represent the moronic normie social media users that are using every other centralised platform in mass and we can save this place from itself.

Basically this platform is completely broken due to badly aligned economic rules. It couldn't get much worse than right now unless you actively tried.

By introducing a series of measures, we can better align individual profit maximizing behavior with honest voting. But these measures themselves have downsides so we have to be careful not to crank the dial up too much.

If we get the dosage just right, we'll hopefully get a working content discovery and rewards platform with minimal or at least tolerable negative side effects. There's just a lot more to gain than to lose.

Agreed, does the option to have the content creator choose the percentage of curation complicate matters further or is that an absurd idea? I would assume it would create a ton of data and appeals to me as it gives me the freedom to experiment within freedom's experimental ecosystem..

I want to also add how impactful temporary delegations could quickly improve a small accounts stake that manually curates.. In 7 months I've made 7 sp curating, if a whale delegated to me for a month I would vastly increase my earning potential. This seems like a positive aspect I think that's not been seen from the redfish lens. As it stands I give two fucks about curating as its pointless except to support what I enjoy. That's the point of social media

Curation slider will likely just encourage big stakers to pile onto posts that offer 100% curation (effectively self voting). It's a complicated economic subject because ultimately, a secondary market can circumvent most (all?) primary rules, but I'm somewhat against this one overall.

A delegation market will still exist, but it'll be quite different after the dust has settled under the EIP. Delegations will likely be cheaper as it doesn't have to price in self voting/vote laundering.

That all makes sense... Thx

Posted using Partiko Android

On that bastard discord? That's hilarious. :) I'm flattered.

Haha, I didn't name names and I just meant discord in general as an off chain forum where the real drama lives and breathes.. Nothing at all personal

mhmm. ;) I stand by everything I said and have self -identified.

I never say things I don't want to get called out for.

Regarding these issues:

On their own I am not totally opposed to any of them. A panicky hail mary hoping for the best I am strongly against.

Its a bad idea, too close together without thought or reasoning and will not bring in new users and will likely run off many more of the few users we have left

It feels railroaded and panicked and rushed. It is up to our witnesses to keep the chain safe, I am hoping they will do just that. However, it looks unlikely. A DPOS system is only as good as it's largest stakeholders.

Oh and to Traf good motives to do bad things... That's weak even if you try to distract from it by using the word cunt. Dishonest and underhanded is just that. And yeah there is no need for that kind of language.

Wankers wank.. It's what they do, when they get caught they try to pretend someone else made them wank.

I have more respect for Bernie, at least he does what he does and doesn't make lame excuses.

Agree or disagree, your characterization of this as remotely panicky is way off base. All of the components have been discussed for a year or more (some more like three years) and the package as a whole for several months.

This isn't being done on a sudden or panicked basis, it has been very carefully and very extensively debated and considered, and eventually the dev team and most of the major stakeholders have largely come to a consensus on it.

Pretty much the opposite of panic.

That's an interesting point of view and I fully disagree. Also regarding the dpoll taking consensus, it was out of context.

The code isn't out and I thought you guys couldn't come to consensus until there was code. Make up your mind. Just the other day you said there is nothing to come to consensus on.

"The discussion period is over when someone (generally steemit in practice) creates a credible code release that can either be adopted or not. Its up to them to decide. That could happen 30 seconds from now or 30 days."

^^ Your own words directed at me... Which is it @smooth?

The code isn't out and I thought you guys couldn't come to consensus until there was code

That is true formally. If the code comes out and it sucks, witnesses will reject it regardless of what was informal consensus earlier, and if it is very unpopular, especially with large stakeholders, witnesses who try to approve it will be voted out. Or for that matter, people may simply change their minds.

Informally, there have been discussions for months to years and a rough consensus appears to be in place to move forward with EIP. But ultimately you are correct that we won't know for sure until a specific hard fork candidate is considered for activation on the blockchain and then either is or is not activated.

Honestly, and take my opinion for the little it is worth, I am cheering for this and any type of changes that aim more toward good content. First of all let me say that if I were in your place I would do EXACTLY what you have been doing and probably way more.

In the end I think what would gravitate more people to stay and join is the idea that they would find good content of all kind, from simple gif and comment, long historical or scientific posts, photography, music, and of course COMedy because when I joined steemit I found @comedyopenmic and I stuck around not because of the payments but as time went by it became frustrating to see all of what transpired within my time here.

Having more people come and stay, places like whalshares are having a lot of unsatisfied steemains moving there, is essential to the success of steemit.

Maybe I am not even making sense here. But overall I just find this worth the shot despite the risk because some of us are still doing this for the love of making good content. Like I spend a lot of my free time to research stuff like world war 2 and Hitler just to bring out good content, last time I left I ended up coming back while being hesitant but I feel if I leave I won’t comeback which is not a loss in a singular sense but you might end up having having a whole site filled with just self voters and no content to attract people from the outside. So I like this plan and most importantly the spirit it is being pitched with. Have a great day

The idea is to come up with a system that's condusive to broadly honest voting across the platform with negative side effects that are at least tolerable.

I'm optimistic. It'll be great even if it noticeable improves things. This entire place will change if it doesn't feel like I'm reaching into my wallet and handing you some cash every time I vote on something I actually like, which is what it feels like right now under this broken system.

You know I've been pushing for economic reform all along. I'm not willing to forgo my own voting rewards if 75% of all active stake is doing the same, but that doesn't mean I prefer this broken system. EIP will hopefully be a huge step in a direction that'll lead to mostly honest voting platform wide.

I really wish you luck with thi, steemit means a lot to me. It is the only source for me to bitch, whine, write, and have fun AND get paid for it. Good luck Traf.

Bitcoin only works because the game theory FORCES all nodes to ACT in the best interest of the network.

Not because there are good people more than there are bad.

That's the standard of this new technology we're trying to build. At least, I believe so.

Will this EIP give us such?


Will it get us closer to it?


Yes, it's naive to believe we can force 100% of active stake to vote honestly irrespective of the economic rules adopted

We can however, reward honest voting a lot more and dishonest voting a lot less, which is what the EIP is designed to do. Hopefully a very large portion, maybe even an overwhelming majority of active stake will want to participate in honest voting instead.

As you can see from the 'How do you Expect These Measures To Work Together to Encourage Honest Voting?' section, it'll require 2 good actors for each bad actor under the new system to close the pay gap between honest and dishonest voting. It's definitely worth a shot and we can tweak the numbers later.

Seems logical right?

Posted using Partiko Android

More than what gave birth to our current Trending page, yes.

But Chb has given me untold self help wealth I could never repay...😂

Posted using Partiko Android

Don't worry. We'll tell Steemit Inc. to start pinning his posts

Yes to all! When this hits live I'll be the fist one to undelegate from bidding bot I'm delegating to for more than one year now. Linear curve with 25%curation rewards did nothing good for the Steem price, nothing good for content discovery, nothing good for new people when most of us delegated to bidbots. Curation needs to be at 50% today, this won't magically fix everything but it will be a step in the right direction!

Likewise, I'll be on the hunt for pricks doing exactly what I'm doing right now, as strange as that sounds, it's perfectly logical

Because under the EIP, fighting against abuse is no longer expensive and futile!

Found a couple for you, these 'traf' and 'raindrop' accounts man, really kicked my Steem morale in the knackers this past year.

You mention it only needing 2 accounts around your size to keep you on the straight and narrow - any idea who they could be? The cascading effect seems only likely to work if the top active voters get in line. That's transisto and ranchorelaxo/haejin - yeah, i'm not holding my breath but it would be nice to see your name appear on the vote pile of some decent content in the future.

I’m glad to see someone fighting to improve the platform, for the betterment of Steem and steemit in general. I think it’s a hell of a lot better than just sitting back and complaining, and sure it won’t correct everything, but I’m pretty sure it’s going to be a hell of a lot better than now.

Ultimate we are supposed to be a social network but one simple thing is not working in the current state which is that money is not flowing around and people are not communicating. I might as well start posting pictures of my ass, no one will notice, they probably just think it’s another selfie of mine (can’t blame them though, it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes).

Further more to just wait for the SMT to solve everything sounds a bit naive, if a company launches a product that is “broken” will you buy it based on the promise that the next model is going to be awesome - so don’t worry ? I think not.

I support your proposal, and I hope most people will realize that it’s worth a try, because things can’t get worse as I see it, only better if we have the guts to change a bit.

Thanks dan

Yes, a social media platform can't function if there's no connection between people's voting behavior and their subjective opinion of the underlying content. It's hard to come up with something like what we currently have unless you tried. After Steemit's restructuring, they were more receptive to my ideas on improving the economic system, as well has how urgent it is, for which I'm grateful.

I don't think waiting for SMTs is an option. It's like if the house is on fire and half the people are debating whether or not to buy a new couch for the lounge room or put out the fire.

Hopefully after these changes it'll no longer feel like I'm paying someone out of pocket every time I upvote a post that isn't my own. I want the rewards pool to be used for rewards rather than staking returns

Btw, you owe me 21c

Scary and exciting all at the same time love it!

haha it's not meant to be scary, if it is it's due to the unavoidable consequence of accepting some trade offs.

It's been a while since voting for someone else's post didn't feel like you're reaching into your wallet and paying them directly out of pocket. And that's the problem, voting rewards are now seen as staking returns.

It's exactly what we're trying to change. See how the measures compliment each other. If I decrease one, I'll likely have to increase another at equilibrium. More measures is actually safer than fewer.

Imagine how high curation would have to go for me to be pretty confident it alone will change the status quo. 80%? 90%? That makes it pretty pointless for non staking authors to participate.

Using multiple measures at once is the precise reason why we can achieve big change with acceptable trade offs.

Are you not entertained is this not what you came for? I can't gif on partiko but imagine Russel Crowe gladiating

Posted using Partiko Android

Social Media (of all forms) will always be an exercise in Game Theory. The EIP does look like it is head and shoulders above the current and previous configurations.

Making it more beneficial to go from Bad to Good instead of Good to Bad should be a huge improvement.

Finally, someone who appreciates true art

The current economy is paying content indifferent voting behavior (self voting, vote selling to bid bots, etc.) 4x more than honest curation.

I vote on content, nothing proposed for the EIP is going to really change the vote habits of the larger accounts. My vote at 100% is slightly less than four cents. Which means I only need to find 20 or so post that I like and value enough to vote on. Most days I do not have a problem finding those 20 people to vote on.

No one is going to bat an eye at my 100% or 50% vote. It is simply impossible for a large account to do "Honest Curation". Look at how hard it is for you to find things to vote Honestly on. If you do not want your account sitting at 100% vote power earning nothing, no rewards, I know some people do not mind that, an investor wants to use his money/vote power to make more money. It will do no good and be impossible for him to find a sufficient amount of content in a reasonable time to provide a vote that will not be downvoted due to providing excessive rewards.

How long before a large account that can vote at $20.00 for 100% vote, $10.00 for a 50% vote, before his votes are being downvoted? how long before he decides he has spent enough time trying to find 20 things to vote on and gives up? As the price and the value of steem rises, the problem is only going to become more difficult. It would be nice if people only voted on stuff they found, on stuff they read, but the larger the account the more stuff you need to find to give a reasonable vote on that is not going to seem like an excessive reward.

Unless of course the whole idea is to get a lot of content voted up to the multiples of 1000's value wise to show the rest of the world how much money can be made on steem blockchain.

I do not like the bid bots, I do not like the vote selling, but the reality is that it is impossible to do away with them. They let the larger accounts be an active part of the steem economy with out sending it back to the days of five cent value per steem.

Ask your self will any of these changes stop you from self voting every now and then just to lower your vote power and have it earn a little bit of steem for you?

Ask your self will any of these changes stop you from self voting every now and then just to lower your vote power and have it earn a little bit of steem for you?

You got one affirmative answer in this post, at least on paper. Though it was a 'maybe'.

And nobody is saying it's going to change everything. But the new rules are wired so that they get more if they do more (rather than just being lazy). So there's at least an incentive to shift. That actually goes for bid bots as well.

I guess when it is all said and done then we will know the outcome. Then people can find the next thing to change so they can move on and put it all behind or on the back burner. I still re-call all the talk about RC's how that was going to Allow everyone to create free accounts to onboard their friends and family, how it was going to control spam content on the steem blockchain, how it would improve content quality and provide things for manual curation. It did not happen how envisioned or at least how it was presented to the people, and I do not see this helping the general user, nor improving content, nor improving curation. I fail to see how this will fix anything other than allowing for the pis-ant flag accounts to flag 25% more often since it will be a free 25%. So instead of 100 flags they will be able to do 125 flags, or more.

I have read all the post put out by steemitblog, not one of them has left me with a clear understanding of what the problem is and what they are trying to fix.

There are two flag issue's one-abusive flagging of individuals and specific types of content. - - two - not enough flagging for excessive rewards.

Curation - post get voted in the first hour or two then curation efforts are over because there is no incentive to curate after the fact. a 50/50 split is not going to fix that.

I would love to see what would happen to a post, any random post, that a whale felt like giving a 100% upvote on because they liked it. When looking at the votes from vote trails most of them are in the single digit or less percentage wise and it makes no difference as to how much Steem Power the account hold. Those with 60 SP vote at 1% as often as those with 100,000 SP vote at 1%.

I honestly do not see how a single one of the proposals are going to help the steem economic situation or the social situation on the blockchain.

Well, you mentioned point (2) on flagging for excessive rewards, and that's the main upside, as mentioned here.

Regarding curation, you are quite wrong about that, and in fact I feel this is something that more people should be aware of. You get back 1/8th of your value even if you vote last (and the curation curve is designed for preserving a minimum incentive to curate). Of course, you can say that's a garbage amount, but it's quite crucial, because as you say, a lot of people are under the impression that after the votes are done there's no reason to vote on top. And that's just not true.

But right, that's not relevant to 50/50 at all. What it is relevant to is that it gives more motivation than before to curate vs self vote. Obviously some people will prefer to be lazy, but the way things are designed, curating really gets quite a boost (especially with the curve).

That is a point that I and no doubt most others miss about the curation reward system, otherwise there would be more individuals like me that vote when we see, read, or enjoy the post regardless of when the post was made if it is in the seven day window. Most post never receive secondary votes after 36 hours of being posted.

I have been preaching the value of honest curation for so long so I agree with that sentiment but I don't see how this will achieve this.

50/50 seems like it would amplify the curation sniping game which is mostly content agnostic (some use certain metadata in their vote prediction strategy) and reward those that predict votes.

Will some manual curators get lucky from time to time and predict organic voting based on the substance of content? Perhaps but I am convinced the vast majority of profitable curation will be simply mapping out autovotes and beating them to the punch.

Will honest manual curators will have any conceivable advantage over a bot curator? I am doubtful of this.

As for free downvotes, I think this notion reflects a very optimistic view of humanity. I would go so far as to call it naive. Now the bad actors can still self-vote but additional they have a quiver of free downvotes to employ to any users that would take action against their abuse.

I have been told by my colleagues at @steemflagrewards to wait and see about this but I don't think it will bode well for our kind that have sacrificed our SP against abuse.

The network lacked proper incentives so we created them. Think we have a good system going of crowdfunded moderation.

Now, I am concerned with out ability to reward the activity of finding and dealing with abuse to include the push back we get from abusers when they have free downvotes.

I guess the plus is SFR will be able to downvote a couple times a day when there is some really egregious abuse. Of that, there is no lack.

Appreciate you at least trying to do something even if I don't have the greatest expectation. It is what it is. Maybe if this doesn't pan out, you can give our off chain solution a look and consider supporting what we do.

You can't see the measures in isolation from each other, they work together.

50/50 on its own doesn't quite get us where we need to be. But in conjunction with free downvotes, poorer quality content will likely take a hit and people will be less profitable with their content indifferent curation practices.

I believe the majority of downvotes will be used with fair intentions of bringing down overvalued posts. There will be some who abuse their downvotes to cause grief onto others, but overall it's a worthwhile price to pay for a real chance at achieving largely honest voting behavior platform wide

I see. I think if these changes do, in fact, make voting less predictable then there is a good chance of effecting a change in behavior from content agnostic voting.

It's a big 'if' though. We would be happy to supplement the probability of that hypothesis coming to fruition if you would be interested.

Perhaps, we can put in a motion for SFR to follow snipers to any abuse and work to zero them out. No payout on the abuse. No curation rewards on the post.

We have bodies with varying amounts of time that can be willing to evaluate the content but may need a hand zeroing them. Then the snipers get diddly squat.

Food for thought.

The EIP proposal is IMO missing the opportunity to re-structure the Steem Ecosystem for the upcoming Dapp Economy.
Here is my take on this.

My biggest concern with this EIP is that blogging and Steemit.com is still the main source to "mine Steem". But we all want to have a thriving SMT and Dapp economy. That is an unfair privilege for Steemit.com and blogging in general compared to all other dapps like Steemhunt, Magic dice or Steemmonsters. IMO the whole POB mechanism should be removed from the baselayer Steem and should be put in the hands of SMT and communities. Steempower should only be good for voting on witnesses, voting on worker proposals from the foundation and maybe vote on SMT main accounts to allocate some Steem from the reward pool.
When SMT and communities are here than those admins should have control over the reward curve mechanism and POB they want to implement.
But if we leave Steem with blogging only mining than its going to be an on going issue while we move towards an dapp economy.

Insightful and forward-looking. I do agree we should think more than one step ahead. Maybe (hypothetically) EIP helps with directing inflation to rewards on a particular model of a blogging platform, but what is that good for? It doesn't necessarily add value to Steem. (And if it doesn't it will still ultimately fail because the value of Steem will continue to erode and no matter how well you direct inflation, a share of a cheap and still-depreciating asset isn't worth much.)

Thank you @smooth for your support. I hope that idea becomes more popular since we don't have so much time to fix the Steem economy.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'm not 100% in favor of the idea, but I do think it should remain in consideration.

How exactly does this solve the “problem”? Authors get less rewards, controversial posts are encouraged to be downvoted, and bid bots will still be profitable if they upvote themselves or proxy accounts. Sorry but it sounds like a terrible idea and really just a lazy solution. If anything it’s just going to encourage even more circlejerking

Authors get more in reality because most of the rewards go back into the pockets of stakeholders right now. 50% of a large pie is far better than 75% of next to nothing.

I believe abusive post farms and poor quality bid bot posts would likely be a much larger target for free downvotes than posts about controversial subject matters, generally speaking.

How exactly is it a larger pie? Still doesn’t solve the problem of people upvoting their friends because they are friends. Good content will never organically reach the top on this platform unless you figure out a way to completely get rid of self voting and voting rings.

But more than that, there will always be a small group of people who try to minmax any platform and game the system. But as long as there is money to be made then you can’t stay ahead of them. As I see it the only thing this change will do is make it impossible for people to use bots for exposure, at least not without taking a massive hit. So we’ll go back to the small group of cool kids getting their posts constantly upvoted by their cool kid friends, full of unnecessarily positive “great job!” type comments...

Maybe just outlaw bidbots altogether and heavily penalize people who use and operate them. There are always ways around it but this would get rid of most of them for sure and at least make them invisible to most users. Make using bidbots a bannable offense.

But like I said even then that’s not going to solve the problem of people just putting money in their friends pockets instead of actually upvoting good shit.

 5 years ago (edited) Reveal Comment

You're one of the few, but hopefully growing number of people who actually really gets it.

Glad to have you help explain these ideas to everyone

@yallapapi, @trafalgar & @baah,

OK, let's be realistic ... Social Media is so-called because it's Social. Human beings bond with one another and create preference groups based upon familiarity and loyalty. You ARE NEVER going to overcome that and in my opinion you ought not want to because any minor distortions caused to some Theoretical Objective Payout Model (based purely upon quality) is more than offset by the value of creating intense cohesion between millions of overlapping and inter-locking social networks.

Sociality is the tie that binds.

The Spartans understood this: Despite their intense life-long training and legendary discipline, they still found it necessary to group family members together in a Phalanx to ensure its integrity during battle.

Besides, "my friendship abuses" will be largely negated by "your friendship abuses" and from a systemic point of view, everything largely works out in the end. Admittedly, a dozen fat walleted friends circle-jerking would create non-trivial systemic distortions but they could be handled on a case-by-case basis. (I deal with that in my Series of Reform Articles).

Far more problematic than friendship-based "unearned generosity" are bidbots and multiple-account-self-upvoting as they introduce pernicious knock-on effects ... like murdering curation by re-directing the 85% of SP that's owned by Whales and Orcas into alternative SP-leasing to bidbots, etc.

In the end, we will always have an imperfect system (human beings are imperfect inputs and therefore create, unavoidably, imperfect outputs). But as I tell my daughter, "95% is by definition imperfect ... but it still gets you into Harvard."

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Let's get to 95% before we even contemplate about how to get to 100%.


I'm not too smart to comprehend fully everything that is been said here. It looks like a good idea. However I feel the proposal is highly speculative and can equally go wrong. A 20% increase in my curation reward means nothing to me. To a whale it is significant. Doesn't mean they will discover my content. The reliance on whales to act accordingly should stop. Ever since the introduction of falls this blockchain has been less about them and more about the people using steem. I think we should keep it that way Chances are they would simply join a curation trail and that's that.

I don't see my activities changing with if these things are been implemented. Most likely my activities will reduce. I would simply leverage on autovotes like I have and share my creative resource amongst different platforms.

I think the problem of content discovery can only be solved if more power (stake) is invested in community. We saw a significant change in distribution when dapps arrived. This is because they got delegation to run their operates and reward users of their dapps. The same cab happen if steemit empowers communities like they did dapps.

Can we develop front ends with unique algorithms that promote quality posts based on engagement and other meaningful yardsticks? Isn't that doable? Won't that change the face of our trending pages?

I also believe that if accounts that are supposed to track spamming activities are doing their job effectively we will also reduce the impact of bad actors. People act badly because that's just who they are. It has little to do with economic policies. I'm not hoping that a change in steem's economic model will deter them. They will simply find their way around it. Like you said there are loopholes and they can exploit that.

Posted using Partiko Android

Can we develop front ends with unique algorithms that promote quality posts based on engagement and other meaningful yardsticks? Isn't that doable? Won't that change the face of our trending pages?

The most popular social media platforms spend billions perfecting their content sorting algorithm even when votes (likes, favorites, thumbs up, hearts etc) generally reflect honest opinions. It's far more difficult to do this well when votes are generally dishonest here. And it's not just about sorting, it's also about rewarding good content, which this does not solve.

People act badly because that's just who they are. It has little to do with economic policies.

Economic policies have a very potent impact on behavior. If your society rewarded you with $100 every time you drove under the influence instead of giving you a fine and suspending your license, they'll likely be far more drunk drivers.

You have the align the behavior you want, in our case honest voting, with the right rewards.

A 20% increase in my curation reward means nothing to me

It is actually a doubling of curation reward. The current asymmetry between 75 and 25 introduces a leverage effect where shifting reward from author to curator means a lot more to the curator percentage-wise than it does to the author.

It is true that for the very smallest stakeholders, even 2x curation reward won't even be noticed (and may still round down to zero and still not be paid at all), but there are many in the middle for whom this will be a very significant increase and encourage more attention to curation, even if not whales. It is also more of an incentive to power up and increase your curation rewards.

It is also more of an incentive to power up and increase your curation rewards.

Absolutely. Doubling curation rewards starts to sound really appealing at even 15/20k SP held. At current market prices, that isn't an enormous stake to the western world, and I would like to think that individuals and businesses could see that % much more interesting than at present.

it is logical)
scary because there are no guarantees))

I laffed. :) You must be a Pom or an Aussie.

Tie me kangaroo down, sport?

What about Resteems?

In my opinion the most important curation tool isnt being rewarded..

Also while I understand it's important to have a good basis, you should also start to rebuilt Steemit.
Cuz that's the layer people use.

Not the steem Code but the Steemit Code (frontend) decides about what is shown on for example trending.

Also you shouldnt have changed to linear rewards in the first place.

Insead of really getting something right, we are in a destructive repair loop..
Just finally decentralize and let the community decide.
Central entity is not decentralized.

Use ur ninja stake to fund what the community wants.

Finally you made it into a post. Many salient points.

appreciate the work you guys do, it's really a no win situation for you guys most of the time
I'm optimistic that the EIP will work better than what most people expect, once the dust has settled after a couple of months

Hi @trafalgar, we noticed that you are flagging this user all the time, could you please tell us the reason? https://steemit.com/@capitanonema

"But Aren't You One of the Bad Actors Traf, Ya Cunt?"

Haha.... my fav Traffy is back!

Fuck you too! :p

$Rewarding 100%

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

You made more than 59000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 60000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem 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!

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

This is heavy and refreshing... It's also always good to you on my feed. How I miss your uncensored writings :D

Lol last statement was epic i was still contemplating on the good and bad of what I've read lol

To get people to vote in a way that honestly reflects their own opinion of a post's appeal with as little negative side effects as possible.

After reading this post and everything about EIP so far. I'm actually convinced that the only way to create a honest voting system should and must be:

¡That no one can vote unless they have read entirely the posts and had left a thoughtful, coherent and relevant comment first before voting! };)

Hello there, its been a while. What does EIP stands for by the way?

Posted using Partiko iOS


I can't remember, but it's somewhere in there lol

Basically it's about amending the economic rules here to 50% curation, 25% free downvotes, and a convergent linear curve.

This will hopefully encourage large scale honest voting.

What if the bad actors decide not to do anything at all?

Posted using Partiko iOS

You mean good actors?

I believe good actors will be far more inclined to attempt to fight abuse if

  1. it's not prohibitively expensive to do so; and
  2. it's not almost guaranteed to be ineffective

The EIP is designed address these things and hopefully will be sufficient.

I mean the bad actors will stop doing bad and decide not to do anything but wait until stakes grow big.

Posted using Partiko iOS

You can't stop bad actors if they wish to continue to behave badly even if it's less profitable than behaving honestly.

But you can try to make bad behavior less profitable than honest behavior, which is what the EIP is trying to do

Hi @trafalgar

What's your opinion about cross-posted Instagram and Tweets to Steemit (Share2steem function)?

After the debacle of HF20, the rush to HF21 should give us pause. Have we learned nothing?

But, damn, it’s good to see a long-form @trafalgar post after such a long hiatus.

HF 20 had some hiccups at the start, but once things started rolling along it works very well
We do need an RC system and in the future things can be built around it to prevent spamming, increase onboarding etc.

It's not like we have an otherwise superb platform going, I really don't understand the reluctance to try different things rather than stick to an obviously failed system.

I really don't understand the reluctance to try different things rather than stick to an obviously failed system.

  1. So many people have left that many of the people remaining are on the extreme end of the distribution of liking it the way it is, for whatever reasons.
  2. There are no doubt people who (at least in their own minds, and potentially in reality as well) stand to lose from this, and some of them are no doubt attempting to influence the discussion both directly and via sock puppets and all of the usual manipulation techniques that by now well known. Those with less of a direct stake, less of an understanding, or who are generally more impressionable are likely influenced.
  3. Plain old status quo bias, fear of change, etc.

What are the Economic Goals ?

To get people to vote in a way that honestly reflects their own opinion of a post's appeal with as little negative side effects as possible. Honest voting is imperative for us to succeed as a content discovery and rewards social media platform.

Allright. Let's remove curation rewards. Any upvote = donate from good people. Every author can earn +25% more rewards than he/she getting at now

Facebook has not curation rewards. YouTube has not any rewards for your vote. You are voting for FREE.

If I want to start earning more money I start sell my votes to bidbots. It's so easy.

Can we test it first on a testnet for a year to get accurate feed back. Deployment without testing is chaos.

Posted using Partiko Android

We can't unfortunately.

We can test it insofar as to see if the code works. But we can't test behavior in response to an economic change with fake money. People have to care about the rewards for their behavior under the new incentives to be indicative of anything so it can't be simulated in an environment where the rewards don't matter

hopefully the dolphins and larger accounts on this platform really push the downvote initiative because it's us who have risked the most. The only way we are going to see our investment gain in value is if we start make it unprofitable to be a bad actor.

When is the next HF scheduled to occur?

Yes that's definitely the idea

The next HF will be hopefully around a month away, give or take a few weeks

It'll be a little tight because they're squeezing in EIP along with SPS. But I really think the EIP is worth it and sooner rather than later

Did anyone consider the previous failure of 50-50 author-curator rewards?

I'm guessing that past actions is not an indicator that this "new" change is likely to fail again?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but trying to understand how changing from a "broken system" to a "previously broken system" is a step forward?

I wasn't around for the previous 50/50 but my understanding is it was changed arbitrarily

Back in Steem's infancy, we had

  1. 100% hyperinflation - total currency supply effectively increasing a million fold after 30 years
  2. n^2 curve - someone with 1000 times your stake gets a vote 1,000,000 times your weight

It would have had severe problems but it was unlikely due to the 50/50. As you can see, the rest of the package is entirely different from those extreme measures.

so you are here saying that you will manually curate (let's say) 100 random people a day with this new system. and you will spend time to find new and small users and will vote for them even they have no votes (because they are new) knowing that with this new curve you will earn much less?

no one is telling us what will happen with new and small accounts. and small by this new rules could be 3000 SP.
And i do hope we all want a lot more people here, or maybe not?

You must be an artist, i have a very similar artwork on my last post, and yes i am an artist.


Posted using Partiko Android

Is there any particular reason / rationale as to why the system works on stake-based voting? I understand the logic behind giving a portion of the inflation to stake-holders as interest -- but the more I think about it, the less and less it makes sense to have large-stakeholders votes (which is essentially an opinion) on content discovery worth more than others.

One almost certainly has to assume that most people are just going to vote for themselves if they're able to give themselves a massive portion of the reward pool and only worry about the occurrence of a similar sized whale starting a flag war with them.

Couldn't a lot of the observed 'unfairness'/broken-economics/user-retention issues be fixed by making every up/down vote (while maintaining the same mechanics for variable vote weight % and voting-mana whatnots) worth the same amount of rShares? Maybe decreasing the size of the reward pool as a whole, while increasing the pool for interest to stakeholders (to incentivize investors and authors/curators to hold SP) and implementing vote-equality would be more effective than just tweaking the split between authors and curators?

While I enjoy watching the whale flag-wars as much as the next person --

My guess is that stake weighted voting is one of the most sybil resistant methods of having a voting economy within a decentralized community where people can be anonymous.

That is to say, it can't be circumvented easily by just making a lot of accounts. It's a very pragmatic reason on top of incentivizing investors to buy more stake to expand their influence. Otherwise, if all votes were equal, more technically savvy individuals would just try to create thousands, maybe millions of accounts and siphon rewards that way.

Thanks for the response, dude. For what it's worth -- I spent a fair bit of time yesterday reading some posts from yourself and @kevinwong regarding the EIP changes, and I think I have a better understanding of the intended effect of the proposal -- so thanks for all the thought that you both seem to have put into the proposal.

That being said -- I would imagine there still has to be a way to leverage some sort of defense against sybil attacks and allow for a 1-account-1-vote system -- especially if there's a legitimate fee associated w/ creating a new account (rather than free accounts via RC's), making it difficult (or at least prohibitively expensive) to create hundreds / thousands / millions of accounts. I know everyone reels at the idea of a blacklist as "censorship", but certainly there's a time and place for allowing communities to protect themselves from bad actors, no?

Regardless -- it's neither here nor there right now, and I don't anticipate it to be anywhere anytime soon, as it seems like an exercise in convincing large stakeholders to release a portion of the large advantage they have over rewarding themselves.


make curation pay in cash.

Posted using Partiko iOS

You know this shit is serious when even ubg makes a comment. You've been a bot to me all these while.

And no, curation should not pay in cash.

How do I gamifiy this new proposal?? 🤣

Posted using Partiko iOS

Hey @trafalgar, great that you posted an FAQ. I think many people oppose the EIP because they are not factoring for changes in behaviour but rather just assume the abuse to continue.

Changing the rewards curve to convergent linear rewards could be tricky to get right. I also not sure if is a necessary change. I am most in favour of increasing curation rewards; they need to be at least 50% to be sufficient incentive for a change in behaviour.

There is still a problem with the proposal to raise curation rewards. With the price of SBD around US$1; curation rewards would be 50%. If the price of SBD increases, as I suspect it will at some point, the curation rewards will fall.

For example, a post has a payout of 100 STU (Steem Token Units). If the curation rewards are 50%, 50 STU goes to the content creator and 50 STU goes to the curator. The content creator will receive 25 Steem Power divided by the price of Steem and 25 SBD. The curator will receive 50 Steem Power divided by the price. If the price of Steem is US$1, the curator will receive 50 Steem Power. If the price of Steem Power is U$$5, the curator will receive 10 Steem Power. If the price of SBD increases, the amount of SBD that a content creator receives does not fall. Therefore, the content creator will obtain a higher share of rewards as the price of SBD increases. The table below contains the curation rewards at various prices of SBD.

Price of SBD (US$)Percentage Curation Rewards

This problem can be solved if SBD can be successfully pegged to the US Dollar.

If pegging SBD cannot be reliably implemented, Steem Power could be paid out to curators in both SBD and Steem Power in the same manner that it is to content creators.

Yes I agree that when SBD goes out of wack but is still internally treated as worth roughly $1 USD, things can get a little out of hand.

I vaguely recall that some improvements were made wrt the peg but don't quote me on that. I also believe a pegged currency is very useful and we should revisit it at some point to improve its stability. Nevertheless it has minimal impact on voting behavior and is therefore not part of the EIP.

Congratulations @trafalgar!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following categories:

  • Comments - Ranked 4 with 98 comments
  • Pending payout - Ranked 3 with $ 150,29

Hi, @trafalgar, I am from @SnaxTeam
I see that your every post is very popular. You have not written for a long time, here is the first post, and immediately a huge amount of comments and upvotes. Now everyone is discussing hardfork, Steam rewards. Have you heard about our project #Snax? Famous steemians like @dragosroua and @liberosist are our block producers Snax is a blockchain platform. It was created for people to receive rewards for their social activity (tweets, Steem posts, and so on). We have our own view on a fair distribution of rewards, different from Steem (this is described here https://hackernoon.com/decentralizing-social-media-rewards-steem-and-snax-comparison-ac17201824cc).

We have already spent several rounds of rewards. And you are one of the leaders of our Attention rating now https://snax.one/steem?page=1. I hope it can be insteresting for you and your subscribers. Join now and start getting a Snax reward https://snax.one/. Ready to answer your questions here. Or you can write to us in the channel Discord https://discordapp.com/channels/509371605542109185/578602854437093426/ We will be glad to see you in our community)

Hello sir @trafalgar. How have you been? I will like to ask you for a favor please. I really don't know if you would tolerate someone asking you for this, but I think it's better I give it a try. Who knows! I might get lucky..lol.

I will like to ask for your support in terms of upvote please. Probably you can set my account to get an auto-upvote from you. I will be elated if granted this request.

(NB: I will be very much ready to give you reason why I need this incase you need one)

Thanks sir!

Posted using Partiko Android

So your way to get people to vote and do the things you want done the way you want them do do it is to flag them and prevent them from gaining any growth?

Regardless of what who or why they are trying to raise funds you are going to flag them because you think they should not be allowed to spend their Steem on Advertisement to get their post seen by others so others might also get involved.

Sounds a bit like dictatorship. When you yourself use bots.

I think the post to which you're replying was the only ever instance I had bought votes in an effort to inform people of the upcoming economic changes as part of HF21. It was also under an utterly broken system, and subject to downvotes consensus (which admittedly were strongly disincentivized at the time.

By definition everyone has upvotes and downvotes in accordance to their stake, which is finite and the aggregate of all these votes is the consensus

I don't have a stance against promotion or advertisement. I do have a stance against selling votes as an alternative and far more profitable means for stakeholders than honest curation. If honest voting only paid half as much as vote selling, over time very few will bother to vote honestly and this will completely undermine our Proof of brain content discovery/rewards system. This is likely why your bought buying posts got hit by mine.

Hey Trafalgar! I noticed you gave me a good downvote on my post. I wanted to say that it was REALLY not my intention to get to #1 spot or have such a s high reward on this .. I had two bots that didn't seem to work ( which later voted), and didnt do the math when i was bidding, and was a bit surprised to see it launch so high,.. i wanted to get in the top #20, which would have been suffficient for me to promote this cause..

Having said that, in this post you can discover that I had basically offered my life, for free, to help create a very unique ecoVillage, helping others to get off-grid for free with proper hard graft for years to come.. and create a new model for living.. with no personal gain ... it is a highly altruistic endeavour.. and so im also not of the opinion that it wasn't worth of being high up there in the trending page.

What iM curious to know is , did you flag it because you don't like agree with the concept, or just because you dont think it should have $100+ rewards.. A big part of me doing this promotion was to discover the sentiments of the people on Steem, and whether there is the kind of support I had hoped would be present here, bearing in mind the nature of blockchain ethos and decentralisation..

Thanks a lot, i respect your freedom to flag this and am not upset, but still am very curious what your reasons were..

you're a total misterdelegation dicksucking retard i detected you even if your last post was months ago

just by burning a few steem

there's FACTIONS here, ...bro

your good content ?

you downvote

you censor

o wait a minute i have to PAY to post this hold on

1 steem maybe ?

if thats enough then i paid for the privilege of replying and you owe me the exact amount you downvoted


dicksucking crowd-following wannabe ... maybe you can get your fans to attack me too

There are 3 pages