Curation is one of those hard things to understand. So if I am the first person to vote on a post at the fifteen minute mark and make the payout of the post $0.30 and 19 more people vote on the post raising it to $2.00, I will get the same payout curation reward wise if I am the 10th voter on a post that has 20 voters and the payout is $20.00?
Any way, I am sure you have a lot more important things to work on, understanding and a place to find the rules and how things work on steemit is not an easy thing to do, most responses from witnesses are "it's on git-hub" "go look at git-hub", The FAQ for steemit is not really a very good tool, and does a pretty poor job of explaining things. There is no centralized help system because steemit is a de-centralized blockchain. Go to get hub or to steemit-chat or discord chat. That is almost everyone's answer to any question from a person with no programing or crypto experience. Thus a lot of confusion for the "simple" users, such as myself, and the seemingly stupid questions or misunderstood answers from those such as myself.
Reason why you should always look at the big picture. Your arguments have their merits and no one said bidbots are gonna die or peeps will stop self-voting. No.
The original point of this argument was to have a system where there will be very little difference between self-voting / delegating to bidbots and voting on other people's works.
50/50 does that. If the profit resides with bidbots, stakeholders will delegate to them. But if the profit resides with both bidbots and normal posts, stakeholders will at least think twice about what brings more value to Steem in the long term!
50/50 doesn't get to the point where there is little difference between self voting and curating. Self voting still gets 100% while curating only gets 50%. But it narrows the gap a lot from the current 100% vs. 25%. The idea is that along with other changes (especially cheaper downvotes) this is enough to achieve a balance.
Sorry for the delay answering, I missed your reply until now somehow.
I totally agree with you on the lack of documentation and I think it's a serious issue. I can't even fully answer your original question, because I don't know the exact algorithm and I haven't had the time to go delving through the code for it either.
And this isn't just an "academic" question: with users unable to know how the system rewards them, they generally come up with some guesses and react accordingly. If those guesses are wrong, even a system with finely tuned incentives probably won't work very well.
It is like playing a used computer game you bought with no rules or rule book, you just start plugging away and hope for a good outcome. There are no "cheat" codes available for the players. You try something it works you think that is the answer, then someone comes and tells you "your wrong", but not what or how you are wrong, just your wrong. It helps when people explain why someone is wrong in their thinking or observations, with out that they will just continue to be wrong with out knowing why.
Hey @blocktrades and @beshadow I was reading through these comments and just randomly thought I would drop in and give a few thoughts.
I also had a ton of questions as far as curation rewards are concerned, especially post HF20.. Right after the fork, I spent a lot of time testing and scratching my head on exactly how curation rewards work on the blockchain and how you can predictably measure your earnings and potential earnings given a set of different variables and circumstances.
I happened upon a discovery that made me so happy... It's a post made by @miniature-tiger. Although it was made 1 year ago, most of it still applies (except for the window being 15 minutes now instead of 30). I recommend you go check it out, it gets pretty technical, but I have yet to see anyone explain and distill it in such an easy to understand way as miniature-tiger does! (https://steemit.com/curation/@miniature-tiger/an-illustrated-guide-to-curation-from-the-simple-to-the-complex-with-real-examples-from-past-posts-part-2)
Here's an excerpt that I think may help answer your original question:
I hope that helps! This obviously gets a lot more complicated as other voters/curation window get added to the mix, but I've run some field tests and have found the calculations to be both useful and on target.
Thanks, that is helpful, but on it's own it doesn't fully answer his question, since I'm not sure what the rewards wind up being for the "10th voter out of 20 case".
My bad @blocktrades, I should've addressed his question more directly lol. This made me do a much deeper dive than I intended to, but here goes. I may have gone slightly overboard with this, but it started as some back of the envelope calculations and now I've come up with the following chart. It should shed light on his specific question and case study of being the 10th voter out of 20.
Please note that @beshadow did not mention the value of the votes that came in the 9 votes preceding his 10th, thus I assumed it as being $5 for this example. You can input whatever number you like and the calculations will play out accordingly - the greater the value of the votes preceding yours, the less your curation reward will be.
Another note: as I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if 100 people vote before you or if 3 people vote before you or if 1 person votes before you. The only thing that matters is the value of the vote(s) preceding yours
you may have to zoom in on your browser to see the image. Otherwise right click and copy image address and open in your browser:
To verify my the math on these charts, example #1 uses the equations of #2 and #3 and applies them to the example provided by @miniature.tiger in his post that I linked in my first comment.
As you can see, example #1 hits the exact same result as miniature.tiger's chart, so we've verified that the equations are actually correct ;)
Conclusion
It's a very steep downward curve when it comes to not being the first voter.
If you vote on a post that is already at $5 with a $0.30 vote, and the post still goes up 4x in value to $20 after your vote, you won't make much Curation Reward at all.
However, if you're the first one who votes on a post with $0.30 and then the post goes up to $2 afterwards, you'll earn a Curation Reward that is equal to 65% the value of your original vote - a 40% increase from your original 25% curation reward.
Hi, I'm deeply concerned with the idea of a 50/50 reward scheme...
The numbers just don't add up. At least this not where we are supposed to be driving the platform. Please read this post, I would love to have your feedback on the subject.
Thanks for wasting 4 minutes of my life :-)
No, but seriously that's a lot of math for a simple conclusion: higher rewards from investors to non-investors will spread the stake faster.
If the goal is just to spread stake faster then it's easy: just increase the payouts/inflation rate to hyperinflation levels, and it'll spread really fast.
And everyone holding Steem will sell it as soon as possible to find an investment that makes sense. Steem value will drop precipitously and ultimately the payouts will become worthless in real value.
I understand that perspective, it will be true if and only if the value of the Steem asset will be the investors' funds locked on the platform as SP or something else... but the reason for any investor to buy Steem is because of the user base that is incentivized to join and stay on the platform.
Why would any be interested in that? I dunno, it depends on the characteristic of the business... mostly advertisement revenues, AI training, big data gathering and analysis, and many other profitable initiatives can be created from the user base. Therefore, as far as I understood when reading the Steem whitepaper and the SMT whitepaper this platform needs to properly incentivize new users to enroll themselves on it.
Thank you for your time :)