I agree that this "experiment" is having a negative impact. I will assume the best of those who are conducting it and assume they are conducting it for a logical and mathematical reason. Perhaps it is a reason I don't fully understand. That being said, the "experiment" is leaving out a huge factor (perhaps the biggest on a social media platform): human emotion.
You can use logic and math to explain all day long why the experiment is good for someone whose post just went from $1 to $.40 but that won't help how they feel emotionally when they see a flag or see their rewards drop. After all, I am guessing that for many people, the reward matters very little (it's $1!). It was the feeling generated by receiving a bigger vote than usual that was the true reward. It was the feeling that "you like me! you really really like me!" All of the good feelings are taken away by one significant flag.
How do you measure "loss of good feelings" in an experiment? For many experiments, silly factors like those would be tossed out... but this is a social platform. Feelings matter. I would argue they matter quite a bit.
Do you think you could have more of a positive impact by remaining a witness? I honestly don't know much about it so forgive me if that was a silly question.
First, there is no experiment. This is just a cover up. I know this is a blunt approach, but based on my observations in the platform and in the chat, I can say that "the experiment" is just another term for a situation the people behind this would like to see unfolding on a daily basis. They consider they have an edge and they should use it in order to rebalance whatever they think it needs rebalancing, against other people choices.
Thanks for the question, but I can't think of a way to make a positive impact as witness, if being a witness means validating transactions that I don't actually agree with. It's a very conflicting position for me, in the first place, and second, I don't want to be publicly associated anymore with this level of confusion.
I deliberately used the term "confusion" although I think it can be anything on a larger scale between incompetency (at all levels) and just plain scamming. But I'd stick with "confusion" for now.
I now understand and respect the integrity it takes to refuse to go along with something you don't agree with.
I truly hope this ends as fast as possible. It seems to be having a very negative impact on community members.
We'll see. Good luck with whatever you set up to do!
i think your issue is DPoS ;)
you seem to want a trully fair system 1:1
in any other model, u'll have to face and accept this type of behaviour from whales that has more power than you and thinking differently.
i'd lke to mention that some minnow actually appreciate the results of this 'experiment'
My problem is not DPoS, in a truly DPoS system there won't be any arbitrary tilting of the reward pool, or lack of communication, or lack of respect. It's not the code, it's the behavior.
Like I said to @ned in a comment here, this business is 95% people and 5% code. If you can't get people on board and if you can't make them stick with your product, then all the code you write is in vain. And the last few months were very uninviting for people around here.
what's the difference in our DPoS and the "truly DPoS" system you're describing ? I mean don't you think the problem is inherent in the design system itself ?
Truly DPoS meaning that every vote requires some active stake, not just what you have in your account. I made a proposal in an article a couple of weeks ago, to combine in a vote tipping and rshares from the reward pool. That's my understanding of PoS.