If you cut the curation dont do it by such a drastic amount. You wont ever get rid of the auto bot culture id suggest you just embrace it as part of the game. A lot like bot traders and manual traders, it doesn't mean its unfair its just part and parcel of the tech. If you cut the rewards for curators to 1/4 id leave and id expect you will end up with a dead platform and a dead hive price. Proposing a 2-3 percent return now when Defi is getting started is insanity.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I also agree that cutting it by 75% would be a bit too much at once, although might be necessary to see the effects of it more clearly if it would be adjusted higher a bit later.
One idea I heard from @smooth recently which I hadn't thought of at all was if downvotes instead of just lowering post rewards would also eliminate the curation returns of early voters (i.e. those pre-5mins), although some content doesn't necessarily take longer than 5 mins to consume I thought it was an interesting experiment to disincentivize front-runners and maximizers getting ahead of huge votes. Wonder what it would mean to votes being queued to be cast at exactly 5mins and if they'd all fit in the same block or how the chain would calculate as to who allow to go through in that block before its full.
My question exactly.
Isn't there a way to distinguish between the manual and automatic votes?
Leave things like they are for the manual votes, and send the automatic votes back to the rewards pool.
Not through the blockchain, there is a way to tell if a vote has been cast through a front-end though, some used to do that (one that was called steeve or something similar coincidentally) so if those front-ends enabled some sort of human verifcation check it could work but of course not for Hive directly.
I can't even find posts in 5 mins, let alone read them. Making a race like this favours automation over real curation. I can't think of ways to favour the human touch right now, but there are plenty of smart people on here who possibly could.
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the 5min timer, I think I suggested 15 or 10 initially and there were some who even wanted it at 1min. Dunno, been thinking of a second layer solution as of late through a token that would favor manual curation over bots.
1 min or 5 makes no real difference. It has to work on human timescales. I get some auto votes in seconds, so they can't make much. Anyway, I'll keep voting on stuff I actually like.
flat 50% reward. No matter which time you vote ( in the payout time)
The system must be as easy as possible.
That's the same view expressed by many manual curators in the comments, and I agree that it is a huge disadvantage for manual curators. I'll give it some thought.
There has to be some balance as we need a mix of big investors and active users. Maybe a curve that reduces rewards for bigger votes. That could encourage auto-voters to spread it around more.
That would so easily be abused and is in fact easier than what is already happening now especially with free downvotes.
Yep, DV big to wipeout the early curators then use another account to upvote to pickup incoming curation rewards. Rinse and repeat with more alts as other bots try do the same to you. Would lead to some wild fluctuations in post rewards around the 4-6 minute mark.
Whether or not content takes 5 minute to consume or not is irrelevant with regards to whether or not a 5 minute window makes sense.
We should rebuild the rewards-model from the grounds up. Ideally removing all liquid rewards from the inflation-derived rewards pool too.
Anyway, even if one could read a post within five minutes, one had to add the duration between the publication of the post and the moment when the manual curator spots it ...
I think, we didn't agree in this point, but I am against any 'curation window', be it five or 15 minutes.
It's a zero-sum change for Hive investors. Lowering the curation rewards also decreases inflation losses by the same amount.
The last thing this place needs is another fracturing of the community. Dont try to fix something that is working well. Look at Steem and see how this place can end up just like it literally over night. inflation can take care of itself if you have enough economic activity to absorb it. Ie new comers.
IMO, it's not working that well. But the proposal is intended as an experiment to see if things improve or not. It's a change that could easily be reverted if it doesn't work out.
I dont see whats wrong, the trending articles are all from an organic community. Whats not working is attracting new people and making them stay/invest. Investing in this place is a multi pronged approach. You need people to want to stay and invest time, energy and money. Thats why the games are the backbone of our community. Gaming and talking about gaming, sharing gaming experiences is a real use case value proposition for Hive. The main problem is that money is only flowing away from Hive and too the exchanges. Changing the inflation rate will have absolutely no effect on the perception of Hive in the eyes of investors in general but it will absolutely kill the appeal which is already struggling. Investment in this place comes in many ways, writing, reading, developing, engaging and of course money. But without the money i think you will have nothing sadly, because where will the demand for Hive come from? it will just all end up on exchanges being traded in speculation instead of what you need which is supply and demand. Create demand. I appreciate your way more in the know about the ins and outs of Hive and more concerned about 'is it working' as it should so i'm only stating it from how i see it. Bots are a problem yes but im sure there is another answer somewhere.
Very well said here. I share many of the same thoughts! Without what we've got for curation what's the incentive for new people to spend a penny on something that's dropped far off the crypto top 100 charts? I sure as hell wouldn't. I could speculate my money on something like ethereum where there is very consistent gains.
Una vez el dinero salga a los intercambios el retorno seria muy bajo, el problema principal sería como mantener a los nuevos usuarios y como tener mayor liquidez con el token hive
Have you heard of sticky wages? It's a well-known issue in economics that people will resist lowering nominal rewards, regardless of the real value.
Also, lowering inflation would benefit current investors like yourself, at the cost of future users. Given that Hive's adoption is low compared to its potential, and the market price is based on expected growth, it's objectively better to prioritize the financial interests of future users.