In general - I really like this idea because if gives more incentivize to power up to get those additional curation rewards. I think that in general part of the curation rewards should be paid in liquid form because then you don't have to power down to make use of your earned rewards. Powering down feels kinda like damaging your account while you might need liquid Hive to invest it into a project, send a tip, sell it or just power up to get more liquid rewards. @reward.app aims to bring this functionality to Hive.
What you have invented is a way to bring back bid bots to Hive. This will cause a race to the bottom for authors who try to outbid each other to entice opportunistic curators looking for maximum ROI.
The logic that powering down feels bad but liquid instead of powered up rewards don't escapes me.
Then, there's the problem of punishing late votes that I've mentioned above.
That "problem" won't go away by redistributing some portion of the author rewards to the curators of a post under rules where the early voter advantage does not apply. One of the stated goals of this project is motivating curators not to eschew voting on high quality posts because they've got votes on them already. I think an incentive to spread out the author rewards wider has done a lot of good on this platform. It's a lot less work to just concentrate votes on the same old high-earning authors. I'm afraid this project will undo some of the good that the EIP brought about.
Of course it happens at the cost of the author's earnings, but - if you provide additional reward for curators, you can expect more upvotes which will make up for the loses. Or not? That's the thing - we'll see :)
Curation is easy to automate.
I'm afraid, I have to agree with you
modern bid bot
I'm sure there are a lot of pros that will come out of this to outweigh the few cons it may be used as, one of them being a bid bot. Either way, it was inevitable for a service like this to exist at some point and depending on how we use it it can go a long way. Best case scenario it will encourage more manual curation and better and longer content instead of accounts throwing 2.5% votes all around. :p
Guess why they are doing it. Btw, I see two different ways to fix the problem:
or
Thing is that this race ends at some point, it's game theory that has been discussed quite a few times. Say a very popular and consistent author would start seeing front-runners front-running the front-runners until the very early votes are so early that the penalty doesn't make it worth the returns.
Hmm, your 2nd idea would discourage content discovery which is why the curve exists in the first place. The problem is people get lazy and not many check the "new" of all posts, with communities it is getting better as more curators are focusing on their own communities and being able to not miss many posts. This is also why we want to focus on bringing more niche communities up the ranks with our curation efforts of OCD so that newcomers that join don't post outside of communities but have a big variety to choose from early on and find their "place".
@reward.app does balance out the early voting a little bit and we could experiment some more with how the "extra" curation rewards are calculated to discourage early voters a bit more. I think with the EIP but with 25/75 this experiment would've worked better as it would've given us a bigger range to work with to switch up how we distribute curation but that's out of our control right now.
If anything it will add some more simulations and testing to new parameters to maybe help in a future hardfork if we come up with better solutions for content discovery. There's a lot of other pros to it and that's a big reason I decided to go forward with it but I understand the skepticism at first glance.
What I'm saying is: I just want to read the posts, upvote the ones I like and get back 50% from my vote value.
Why autovoters who don't even read posts, do profit from my investment? Should I invest more in Hive, once I know this fact?
You are trying to fix the issue without any changes to blockchain code. I understand your intentions. I wish you good luck, but it will be hard to achieve your goals
Frankly speaking a business model on broken code. Curation curves are complex for a normal "facebook"+twitter user whom they want to onboard here.
And I think very few has has interest in promoting the manual curation and every effort is done to penalize the authors only though claimed backbone of a blogging system but I doubt in practice.
Yeah, in curation area we are still running Ned's code. Let's hope HMT won't make same mistake
Curators don't know the additional curators share - they can be easily outplayed by authors. We will also allow users to set it to random.
We already have many curators who seek max ROI, voting the same users all the time. One can argue that we level the field a little by allowing more users to enter the game.
That's why we're throwing in some chaos :)
They can read the on-chain messages sent to you in which the authors specify the number.
It's a common misunderstanding that the highest ROI is achieved by always voting the highly rewarded posts. That is far from the case. So long as the rewards are above 20 HIVE or something, the curve tax is not an issue. Also, highly rewarded posts tend to have a lot of different curators voting on them trying to front run each other.
It's still easy to automate.
By the way, adding complexity will only benefit the most astute maximizers.
That's why we can have memo encryption and setting this trough website.
Of course, but it's most predictable which is good enough for many automated curators. That's why you see the same authors in trending so often.
Curation is already automated for many users, @reward.app won't change it. But we're adding something new and will observe the results. We have ways to make the curation more profitable for both manual curators and automated ones.
It has but a lot of it is being done for the wrong reasons. If you check some big accounts you will quickly notice that many vote on posts that have no votes cast before them, by that I mean no votes at all and they often don't get any additional votes after either. These accounts are already maximizing their curation rewards but don't realize that some of these posts have not received any votes for a reason (or don't care to realize), yet when they stumble upon better content that has 0.10-1$ in rewards they won't vote because they know a portion of their returns will go to those who voted for 0.10-1$. It's really backward, in one way they're focused on voting 100x 10% votes per day which you'd think is great for the platform but on the other hand as soon as some of the regular accounts generating good content start to get some front-runners and bots the bigger accounts are going to discontinue curating them.
Of course as someone who's focused for years now to curate new authors and their content I enjoy this distribution but knowing it's being done for the wrong reasons and often times votes being cast on garbage content just because it has no front-runners it's not doing the platform well. At the same time authors are realizing this, they know that if say @bigaccount1 votes on their post there's no way @bigaccount2 or @mediumsizedaccount1 is going to add another vote on their post. What do you think this will encourage? Authors start to write content with a certain amount of effort just to be good enough to receive one of those big votes or they create several accounts so they can post more short posts daily to receive more votes from @bigaccount1 without them knowing - sockpuppets.
As I mentioned in my post, there's a lot of things we'd want to accomplish and while we understand there are some drawbacks to this experiment we hope that the majority of changes will be positive and if there's ever anything we can add to make sure things won't get abused we're going to see to it to do so.
Anyone can already post as many posts as they could possibly want using a single account. There is no advantage to using sock puppet accounts for the purposes of being able to post a greater quantity of content. On the contrary, using several accounts for posting content comes at a distinct disadvantage. The alt accounts do not have any history of engagement, few to no followers, nor do they have any autovotes set on them. Far fewer curators, large or small will ever see the posts.
Also, isn't the whole point of rewarding content just that - rewarding content regardless of who authored it? In my opinion, one of the biggest problems of Hive in terms of content is the sheer lack of it. When I go to Quora to answer questions to ask them myself, I find an astonishing volume of content I could easily spend days or weeks engaging without exhausting interesting material. In contrast, Quello has such a dearth of content that there is very little to catch anybody's interest.
Well talking about sockpuppets... If you have several topics you write about one racing cars one swimming one making lamps if you do that on one blog it's not CEO Google friendly and readers also don't want to read about swimming if they want to read about racing. It's just another blog with another topic. No sock puppet in my opinion. Few years back it would be advised to talk about one topic on steem. 😉
I think the downvote button will be very useful for abusers who will take enormous profits from this. The idea is great after all
Agree completely and must let you know that you have articulated it perfectly and constructively.
I see your point... but.
The reason this wont turn into anything as bad as a bid bot is because... we have free downvotes and curation rewards oscillate so much that 4% means little to nothing.
If you want to maximize picking a good curation target far outweighs the gain from those 4%.
I see this more of a token of appreciation then anything else.
The benefit is on the author side actually imo. Not having to powerdown has value and id say that value is greater then the 4% loss.
There have been a lot of talks about adjustable curation rewards and it would basically create the same race to the bottom effect and one of the biggest reasons against it. I really think 50/50 is a good balance to incentivize curators to curate more organically (never will be perfect) and reward authors.
Based on my ten month experience of the current system, I think it works very well on balance.
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a c0mputer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $9391 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here................... http://Easynet1.com