# First maths after HF21

in #steemit3 years ago (edited)

I'm here performing my first calculations after the HF21.

Recently my friend @solarwarrior gave me more clarity about the implications of this change on numbers, at the comments of my last post A loser's reflection on HF21:

just as an example.. this comment got a 100% upvote from me which at the old method was worth 0.70 to 0.72 USD.. now its only 0.42 USD

First, I want to thank that kind gesture of a 100% upvote. I love the culture of solidarity we are growing here, despite all our problems and big difficulties.

Coming back to the comment... that's approximately a reduction to the 60% of the old vote's value, now split by 30%-30% (50% author, 50% curator).

Onto a trending comment (if there is such thing) the vote of my friend could have grown to 0.84 USD —I read in this post of @crypto.piotr that his upvote's value grew by 20% when applied to popular posts in the trending page, from 1.7 SP (old value) to 2.04 SP. But, when applied to unpopular posts (that is... the great majority of posts in Steemit), it went from 1.7 SP to 1.04 SP... that's also a decrease to the 60% (61, to be exact) of the old value.

Of course, according to the new system, that value also depends on the moment of the vote: if you vote last for a popular post your vote's value will increase the most, but you will receive less rewards from curation, if your vote is among the first ones, its value will be little, but you'll receive the bigger part of that 50% of curation rewards.

As we can see in the experiment of @crypto.piotr, between both possible outcomes there's a difference of approximately 1:2... it could double or halve the new value.

# Not so good for... every author

source

I couldn't do these calculations before for the lack of information of the detailed results on our votes, but seems to me that perhaps this change just decreased the reward for every author.

Do the maths: An increment of 20% on the vote's value minus the 25% added to curation rewards leaves a -5% at the author's reward, in comparison with the prior system.

And that only happens if the author is being popular and his post got upvoted by many people, so that the value of their votes really increased by 20%.

If the post didn't attained such fame (like most posts), that -5% for the author's rewards will fall even more. How lower? Well, from the prior 75% (author's reward) to the overall decrease to 60% now, it's -15%... plus the half of that general reward (30%) taken now to the curators, it's -45%.

So, every author will be receiving now almost half the rewards he was earning before (and even those rewards were, for many of us, very little). But if he succeeds getting into the trending page... he will receive not half but only five percent less of what he would receive before for the same support.

I'm still waiting to find if perhaps the increase on the vote's value could reach more than 20%. With the mentioned experiment of the leader of the @project.hope it only went up by 20%... If, with different conditions, it could increase higher than 25%, only then we could say that this system gives, effectively, more rewards to some authors than the old.

However, even in that hypothetical case, we should be aware that such increment would only be available to the most popular posts in here, that is, those that reach the trending page.

Do we have good statistics about how many posts, compared to the total, go trending? What is their percentage in the whole amount of posts? I think that is an important data for us.

Meanwhile I reaffirm my opinion that this new system has serious flaws in its design, mainly regarding the appreciation of good authors that give so much time and efforts to bring their best expressions to our community.

This is especially hurting to us, planktons and minnows, needing more help because of our little rewards (certainly needing more than the authors at the trending page) and receiving now exactly the opposite.

Helping the rewards of the big ones and cutting those of the little (who give good and, sometimes, even better contributions)... That is no way to care for a community. It is not.

# However... more curation

source

They say that this new system would encourage more conscious curation, but seems that the most profitable curation can be made on the posts of well established trending authors. Those authors will have many people waiting for their next posts to vote on them early and compete for a great piece of those big 50% rewards.

Nevertheless, even among curators there's an inevitable distinction between winners and losers (of big rewards).

I am not a communist. Living in Venezuela and suffering all this stupidity of socialism... that would be pretty impossible on me. So I do believe that competition is healthy and good for every social dynamic —although there are very sick kinds of competition... we must be aware of that too—.

In Steemit, the competition is now likely to increase with the participation of more people willing to upvote something they could consider interesting and well made.

You know, we all will get now (at least) half of our vote's value as a reward for every upvote. And if the post upvoted get more support, we'll earn even more. That certainly will encourage many people to buy STEEM, to power up their accounts, to find good posts and even resteem them —so that other people could see and upvote, thus increasing the rewards—. Furthermore, every author can be a curator... and most of the time we are, at some level.

But we need an adequate culture, a general mindset for curation that doesn't center its commitments on the easy upvoting on trending posts, but on searching and supporting good unseen contents. I don't see that mindset reigning now on Steemit, though I've found it in many little groups committed to protect this community.

I always give so much value to the culture because I see that it is the factor that determines people's behaviors in every niche. It is the key to shift this new system into something that could help every good member of our community, despite the terrible flaws of design of the New Steem.

Could we contribute to promote that mindset any more? I think yes, just by expressing and developing thoughts about the importance of it.

Culture is thinking. So let's think better ways for the interactions among us. The ones that we've had are not good enough.

First image's source, Pixabay

You can share my writings on your social networks and websites; but be so kind as to inform my authorship, as well as the source of the text with a link to my blog.

~Spirajn Senpretend~

If you want to support my work but this post got beyond 7 days old, please go to my most recent publication, so that your upvote could really reward my efforts. You can also send a little tip to my wallet.
In any case, I will be very grateful for your kind support.

Dear @spirajin,

As I concluded in my latest post, I believe that this may be, in fact, a blessing in disguise.
Surely, the original content posters might not be at the best advantage "at first glance" however, this HF21 might comes as a good counter-measure to "one-sided" accounts.
With this, the low-SP accounts will be more or less forced into interacting with people, and curating other content, thus, getting more interaction through the blockchain.
This might be unexpected excellent for communities and have an impact on self-vote too.
Getting more communities will be an excellent way to have a pool of people to count on in case you are targetted by downvotes, which is also an important side of steem now.
So all in all, I think that what one needs is the overall account overview. Basically, is 1 or 2 post per week with lots of interactions with others counterbalance the negative impact of this?
I believe so because it forces you to interact with lots of people and therefore gets you a broader audience.

Hi friend @spirajn, I agree with you. I will quote a phrase from me from a post I made the same day the changes were applied.

Since the changes will only make the big ones bigger and the little ones it will cost us much more to continue growing. Only if you really do create content.

So the little ones in one way or another must look for alliances in such a way that we can choose the win-win formula

I'm still not doing the post we talked about,

Between nothing and nothing.

Thanks for your comment, my friend, and sorry for the late response.

Yes, we are lucky to be part of Project Hope, that sustain our efforts to a certain degree; that is our alliance that gives us a win-win game.

After the changes of the HF, our rewards are decreasing, but at least we have some constant support and we help each other.

But that dynamic is strongly limited by the mere design of the blockchain, and it's affected by the problems that come with it. For example, the deplorable recent downvotes against @crypto.piotr: I know that many of us wanted to help somehow, but there's nothing to do with this little SPs, just keep supporting.

Now it's the law by the stronger.

PS. I'll wait for your reflections about nothingness, it's a matter that interests me.

Best explanation I read so far. Or maybe I understand it better. Just wanted to say.

Many thanks, @machnbirdsparo. I certainly tried to explain it in the best way, because it implies important calculations.

Today I'm feeling that this terrible change already began to show its worst manifestations.

We can show the problems of this HF by 100 explanations, but it won't change anything. It is not in our hands.

I'm going to develop my blogging in other platforms. It is not healthy (anymore) to expect too much of this one.

Steemit was one of my first introductions into crypto applications. When the price fell, I was hoping for it to rise again. I was able to buy groceries for a few weeks there when I won contests. Today, however, I must say that my hopes lie in diversifying my contributions. This not very efficient use of my time and does not provide me with significant income as of yet.

Yes, I think many of us (maybe the majority) have that same problem.

In my personal case, Steemit and the other cryptoblogging platforms represent (more or less) the possibility to "monetize" my cultural work, while I keep developing my books, films and other products that will take more time and effort.

So I will possibly remain blogging here because it's just an added tool for the cultural work that I already keep. But it is very discouraging to see how the creators' role is so low in value for the eyes of the masters of this platform.

I will try harder to develop my videoblogging and Patreon. Those are niches that have far more respect for the efforts of every cultural creator. But I dedicated these last months to Steemit, more than to every other tool.

But it is very discouraging to see how the creators' role is so low in value for the eyes of the masters of this platform.

Indeed. This will change as society matures beyond our current needs of the immediacy driving forces.

The reward curve suck. ;)

Posted using Partiko Android

So, every author will be receiving now almost half the rewards he was earning before (and even those rewards were, for many of us, very little). But if he succeeds getting into the trending page... he will receive not half but only five percent less of what he would receive before for the same support.

Think about BTC halving, then you'll see that this approach, though seems quite bad for authors at the moment, should have positive impacts on the price of Steem. By cutting the Steem inflation rate by nearly half, as you've brilliantly stated, we should expect compensations in the months ahead.

Cheers!

3 years ago (edited)

Well, I hope it will happen like that, but there's no certainty about that outcome, there are only hopes.

However, even in that case, this system will remain designed to overlook the contribution of authors with little SP and few connections.

Authors' contributions must have value for themselves, and that's exactly what curation was about: to find and reward those gems. Now this system is telling that it is not enough to create valuable content.

That is a pretty interesting analysis. I just upvoted this post by 50% and the vote is worth far less currently 0.432) because the current value is quite low. On another post I cast a 45% vote and that vote was worth over 0.6 STU. That other post is now on trending. It might be worth just plotting these results to see how they compare with the what was predicted by Steemit Inc.

Thanks for that upvote, and sorry for the late response. Things got uneasy after the HF, but now it stabilizes.

hi @spirajn

I didn't have a chance to comment on your post earlier on (simply because of the fact that STEEM blockchain was down so I took few days off and allowed my eyes to rest a bit :)

What's your impression so far? One week after hf21 and hf21 has been introduced?

ps.
Check out my latest publication..
It brought some real emotions. I've been downvoted by over half million SP (attack of few accounts), however I also received solid support and few strong upvotes and now I will be enjoying the biggest genuine payout in my lifetime ;)

Strong upvote on the way!

Yours
Piotr

I am angry for what happened at your open letter. It is the strongest evidence of what you were warning about in that same post.

You were talking about the creation of a downvoting culture and then... boom, you receive some downvotes of people that simply didn't like what you were saying.

You didn't break any rule, you didn't plagiarize or scam someone. You just expressed some important thoughts about the health of this ecosystem, with the best will to bring people together to improve the interactions in Steemit.

That's how they thank your contribution, your healthy disposition. If they treat that way the best members here, I really don't understand what they have in mind for the future of this platform.

well feeling not good about it

Well, I am just happy to get something ... I guess that is the best you can do in times like this.

Of course, despite all my bitter feeling about this, I'm planning to keep posting here and receiving some rewards. From now they'll be less, but something is better than nothing.

Esperu ni ke la stima valoro altiĝas eble denove al 8\$ kaj tiam la tuta afero ne gravas ĉar tiam ni ĉiuj gajnas pli ol antaúe.

Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 15 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.

I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 3 SBD worth and should receive 162 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.

I am `TrufflePig`, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!

Have a nice day and sincerely yours,

`TrufflePig`

Thank you very much. Pardon the late response, the crashes of the HF caught us. I will read your explanation post.

This is a very interesting post. You are right that small authors will have even more difficulties to earn rewards. On Steem we are not only authors we are also curators. In the long term this new system will push us to grow and to collect more Sp. We will be more comitted and it will be favourable for steem prices.

Posted using Partiko Android

I share these sentiments too. Cheers!

I hope you're right. I've already seen many bad consequences of all this.

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

 You got more than 200 replies. Your next target is to reach 300 replies.

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`