A Few Modest Proposals Regarding the Downvote Pool

in #utopian-io5 years ago (edited)

2017-05-10-18-54-47-900x646.jpg
Source

In this occasion Jaguar Force would like to issue a few modest proposals regarding the downvote pool, a sort of open reply to the Downvote Pool Deep Dive post by the Senior Blockchain Engineer at Steemit: @vandeberg

Firstly, we would like to introduce ourselves to you, here you have our introduction post where you can find out what Jaguar Force is all about. We are a team of cleaners and Steem users that recently formed this antiabuse initiative with the objective of tackling the abuse problematic on the platform in innovative, creative and effective ways.

The proposal to establish a system on Steem where accounts have a certain amount of downvotes available to them that do not consume voting mana is one we find highly interesting and appropriate as a way of incentivizing negative curation (downvoting) at the protocol level. The present deincentivation of negative curation (via its lack of rewards and its consumption of voting mana) is one of the major factors that result in the marginal number of downvotes issued overall and also one of the reasons for the rampant state of abuse by fraudsters/plagiarists/spammers/scammers/farmers/you-name-it. The fact that there is no incentive to negative curation embedded in the protocol, and that there is a disincentive in it, makes it all but certain that a substantial amount of negative curation won’t take place.

Our Proposal

While taking the disincentive out of the equation is a crucial and fundamental step, there is another additional modification that is needed to make negative curation work in practice.

Two factors are involved in the need for this modification:
retaliation.jpg
Source

1) Downvote Retaliation:

Even more powerful of a factor working against negative curation than the consumption of voting mana, is the risk of retaliatory flags, users downvoting back the users downvoting them as a deterrence tactic.
This retaliatory downvoting is made way more likely to happen if a certain amount of downvotes don't consume mana.

2) Abuse Discovery Information Propagation:

Negative curation of abuse such as plagiarism/ID theft/etc. mostly depends on the work antiabuse initiatives, regular users don’t check posts for plagiarism or dont investigate posts deeply enough so as to effectively find these types of abuse. Hence, even if the disincentive is eliminated and users gain the power to downvote a certain amount of posts without spending voting mana, there remains a logistic problem regarding translating the abuse discovery into actual downvotes of that abuse, since every time an antiabuse initiative finds, say, a plagiarized post, that initiative would have to communicate that information to users. This is a bottleneck since it requires the time and attention of users, generating a logistic/communicational burden that is hard to overcome.

Both these issues can be solved by the solution we propose.

delegation.jpg

Enter Downvote by Proxy / Downvote Delegation

Just like users can vote for witnesses by proxy -delegating the choice to a party that they consider better informed than them to make the witness selection- and just like users can delegate SP -as for example so that the delegatee performs positive/negative curation for them- there is the need for the proposed downvote power to be able to be delegated.

In this way, the vast majority of users that do not engage in abuse discovery/detection can delegate their downvote power to antiabuse initiatives such as @steemcleaners @steemflagrewards or @jaguar.force who actively dedicate themselves to detect and engage abuse. This approach solves the abuse discovery translation into downvotes of the posts since the downvote power is now in the hands of the delegatee, so the communicational burden is overcome.

Additionally, this approach largely solves the retaliatory downvotes issue, since:

  1. The downvote decision is not made personally by the user.
    and
  2. Given that the downvote power is delegated to a third party who is likely to have many more of such delegations, it is unlikely that the downvoted party will go look who delegates their downvote power to the downvoting account and proceed to downvote the large amount of accounts that would be delegating to those antiabuse initiatives.

In short, this allows negative curation to take place in an effective and efficient manner while reducing the risk of reflexive/retaliatory downvoting and the occurrence of downvoting positive feedback loops or downvoting vicious circles aka “flag wars”.

There is one more idea we would like you to consider, and we will be brief so please bear with us for a few more paragraphs.

Our Second Proposal

Let's consider the case in which a user makes a plagiarized post and then that post is detected by an antiabuse initiative or regular user when it already has substantial rewards. And let's assume we all agree that a plagiarized post deserves $0 rewards and that the accounts upvoting the detected plagiarized post deserve $0 curation rewards.
There is 3 solutions that accomplish the rectification of the situation.

  1. Voting parties unvote the post to $0
  2. Other parties downvote the post to $0
  3. A combination of 1 and 2.

It is important to note that in this context an unvote equals a downvote regarding the diminishing of the plagiarized post rewards.

1024px-Oracle_of_Delphi,_red-figure_kylix,_440-430_BC,_Kodros_Painter,_Berlin_F_2538,_141668.jpg
Source

Oracle Assisted Unvote/Downvote Rewards + Curation Rewards Freeze & Switch

When a plagiarism detection oracle -that could be for example @SteemCleaners - determines that a post is plagiarized, curation rewards would switch from those upvoting the post to those unvoting or downvoting the post. In this manner the parties that upvoted the plagiarized post are incentivized to unvote it and other accounts are incentivized to downvote it, by being curation rewards corresponding to the peak value of the post distributed, stake-wise, to those that unvote it or downvote it until the post is at $0.

The plagiarism detection oracle(s) could also be voted upon by the community just like witnesses are so that the decision of who qualifies as an oracle is decentralized.

In this context, were the upvoters not to unvote the post, they would gain no curation rewards. Additionally this system allows for plagiarism discovery to have a certain amount of the curation rewards to be issued to the detecting party as a sort of bounty reward for discovering the plagiarism, for example if the unvoting/downvoting parties then pass forward a part of the curation rewards to the party that detected it.

A tertiary effect of this system is that the downvoting of severe abuse as plagiarism/id theft/scams/etc would be prioritized by independently downvoting accounts over disagreement of rewards downvotes, since the former would yield curation rewards while the latter would only result in the diminishing of the rewards.

It would also incentivize the celerity of response of independently unvoting/downvoting accounts since the curation rewards would only be shared stakewise with those that unvote or downvote it before it reaches $0.

In summary, the freeze and switch of the curation rewards of demonstrably plagiarized posts would incentivize the unvoting and downvoting of such posts by recognizing at the protocol level that in the same way that content discovery and upvoting is curation and adds value to the platform, abuse discovery and unvoting/downvoting is also curation and adds value to the platform as well.

This is Jaguar Force,
Reporting directly from the Jungle
Onwards!

Sort:  

Howdy @jaguar.force,

This was somewhat of an atypical post from what we would expect in anti-abuse but I like your ideas nevertheless. I will state that the curation switch would be the one that is easier said that done but the ability to delegate from ones free downvotes has potential.

I was impressed by the level of detail you went but I feel as thought the second proposal but I think there needs to be more detail in how. I suppose there can be some sort of event added to the post payout event that reviews for any oracle comments but, on the flipside, there are those that would cry foul for centralization.

Perhaps, a function to search using abuse keywords and functions to identify plagiarism source inclusion could be added to witness code to place a payout under review (We want to be mindful of bad actors that would abuse this mechanism of course) and require the witnesses to manually review to approve payout.

Admittedly, this could be a hard sell but I don't think it is unreasonable for us to add validating questionable payouts as a function of witnesses that are paid daily in Steem.

Such a thing could even be used as a performance metric to help stakeholders make more informed decisions in their witness votes. (If a witness fails to review, stakeholders can then unvote for non-performance)

I don't think it's unreasonable to have witnesses perform this task. They are charged with securing the network afterall so it seems to follow that they would prevent those acting in bad faith from acquiring influence on the platform via post rewards.

There were certain antiabuse criteria that this post does not fit but I did my best to fairly rate as I do believe it has value even as a proposal. If implemented, I do believe this can help the antiabuse community.

Your contribution has been evaluated according to Utopian policies and guidelines, as well as a predefined set of questions pertaining to the category.

To view those questions and the relevant answers related to your post, click here.


Need help? Chat with us on Discord.

[utopian-moderator]

Thank you for your review, @anthonyadavisii! Keep up the good work!

Hi @jaguar.force!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your post is eligible for our upvote, thanks to our collaboration with @utopian-io!
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Seems legit, I see one top witness voted this post. How difficult would this be to code into the HF? So many steemians are already feeling overwhelmed by the EIP and SPS but that really doesn't matter lol, Not seeing a lot of attention given to this thus far, the consensus witnesses I hope are being made aware of this additional proposal? I assume you've contacted the accounts that could push something like this through...

Certainly worth considering...

Posted using Partiko Android

That’s just a vote from the curation trail.

Ah I see, is this another lost in the pile of steem posts? Content discovery needs to be discovered 😂

Posted using Partiko Android

I was wondering what you recorded delegates.
And the conclusion sbd and steem And also included a decrease in the power of voice.
And nothing wet - interest you come up with.

Thank you for your feedback!!

You are a Walden swindlers, your time will come to you blacklist
steemcleaners

We agree with you Walden is an excellent book by Henry Thoreau.

Hey, @jaguar.force!

Thanks for contributing on Utopian.
We’re already looking forward to your next contribution!

Get higher incentives and support Utopian.io!
Simply set @utopian.pay as a 5% (or higher) payout beneficiary on your contribution post (via SteemPlus or Steeditor).

Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV.

Vote for Utopian Witness!

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

You received more than 2000 as payout for your posts. Your next target is to reach a total payout of 3000

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

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