How do we make both people who love to curate and people who don't want to curate happy? What if when your Voting Power (VP) is sitting at 100%, you started to automatically earn a bonus in interest? (slightly smaller than average curation would get.)
This way, you can vote when you want, if you don't, you earn a bit less but at the cost of not having to do anything. Interest paid this way could be in the form of HP to lock them in. This is also cool because now it's compounding interest, IE powering up HP creates more HP, etc. Just a thought. So instead of "opting out" in some complicated way, you simply don't vote. And if you want to vote, you can but you won't earn that interest again until you are full VP.
There would be no need for 2 accounts. Simply, once your voting power reaches 100% you earn extra interest. When it is below 100% you earn the normal interest that pays out currently, which is much lower, I believe around 1% or so, (correct me if I'm wrong.)
Example: Curation on average pays 10-15% let's say. When your voting power reaches 100%, you earn 8% interest. That is 20%+ lower than what the average curator makes, however you still earn a decent amount, and isn't the end of the world if you don't curator for a month or two, or ever. 8% vs 10% is not a death knell to anyone's stake in the form of being diluted.
What this does is allow people to vote when they want to vote. It solves the whole, forcing investors to play the curation game complaints.
What are your thoughts?
Nice idea... I like it... but...
I still think it's a better idea to allocate that inflation to the savings accounts. I feel like we need a totally separate system for those looking for that passive income. Well, I guess we don't NEED it... but it would synergize well with other functions that could later be added to the bank accounts like MakerDAO-type loans.
Now that I think about it there's no reason we couldn't do all of these things.
These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
Again, Good Idea.
love it! liquid hive with interest.
interest paid to providers of a uniswap type thingo might be cool also
I do like the savings idea as well! But agree, can have both.
At first look, I like it.
I think perhaps there should be a decay type function added. I'm not thinking so much of the 'investment grade' stake accounts, but the hundreds of thousands of abandoned small stake accounts. Some form of activity every 6 months in order to receive the reward.
It's certainly worth considering and discussing. Thanks for the topic.
I like the decay part, make a blockchain action in x time to reset your decay timer, something along those lines.
Exactly that. Should slow some of the drag on the system.
compounding interest of this type would just continue to let the larger accounts mine a larger part of the reward pool, which is good for investors but can turn off new users.
on-boarding is one issue that is getting solved (thank you LEO)
retention is harder because of the larger accounts getting larger. I know it is just a point of view and new members can "invest" "buy" Hive to be on the platform but for appearances it is hard to convince them people are not raping the reward pool.
I still feel we need to focus on making Hive a strong "Utility" token with use-cases. This focuses on user experience. I don't agree with focusing on "investors". I feel the last 3 - 4 years of this DpoS experiment has been focused on Investors (chasing money) and it has not worked well.
I know my opinion is not popular but I see a future where HIVE has uses in applications and stabilizes around $0.25 USD per coin. Once it becomes more stable I feel use case / adoption will increase.
Just my thoughts.
As i am thinking more about this.
This type of conversation is coming from the older larger accounts on the chain(many different people) that feel it takes a lot of time / effort to maintain the size of their stake on the chain.
they are a little burnt out and would like to change the blockchain to protect their stake (early mover advantage everyone in every aspect of life does try to do the same thing). In a way that doesn't take as much effort.
so it does not bother me, but we should call it what it is and decide if that is the direction we want to go without hiding behind "it is a good investment" type of discussions.
Utility without retention is just pure velocity, which is akin to a hot potato being tossed around. Hive has on-chain governance, which means that people who are serious about building on the protocol will want to have a say in the future of where it goes or doesn't go.
If you buy something of value, do not sell it, and it can fluctuate in value, you are an investor by default. Every investor, big or small, has days where they do not want to curate.
Large accounts right now that auto vote is earning way more than they would under the new system (assuming we expand the curation window to suit manul curators, not Autobots.) So if you don't want the rich to get richer at an unfair advantage to those with smaller stakes, the system I explained above prevents this. Curators will always have a way to make more than people who don't vote in this system, because they are working and providing value to the system.
If you remove PoB all together, you'll see the rich get richer as you've never seen before on this chain.
makes sense
What are your thoughts on creating perks for those noncontributors, like you've outlined here (I think you're offering too high of a percentage but at the same time, I'd gladly take it while I'm away, since I do spend many months away every year and don't vote while I'm gone).
That combined with simply randomizing the vote order at payout, which would solve some of the issues we face with the current five minute window mess and auto voters/noncontributors earning unfairly when compared to contributors. ???
Then it doesn't matter when you vote or how you vote. Some days you'll win the jackpot, other days you'll get skunked. Every post is like a curation reward lottery ticket.
*edit: Blocktrades tells me this randomization stuff would be hard to pull off on a blockchain.
Ya the number can be played with, even as low as 5% I think is acceptable. Obv it cant be too low or people will just autovote and it defeats the purpose. My thoughts are, widen the window, autobot curation goes from 20% down to 10% basically overnight. Compound this with people sitting out and earning some, but not the 20% they were, this will raise everyone current curation reward that is doing even semi manual.
It's interesting. With people opting out of curation, that gives those opting in more weight to throw around. I see some concerns here along the lines of, "People won't see the need to vote, therefore nobody will vote." If I was the only one willing to vote, I could place the entire reward pool on ten posts. There's still plenty of incentive to vote.
It is similar to bitcoin mining, the fewer curators out there the more they make and vice versa. Some people would curate even if the rewards were 50/50 between the two. The reason is, curation is powerful, you can build communities, businesses all kinds of cool stuff around curation that you can't just sitting back collecting passive interest.
I do believe this will wipe out all the shitty curators who feel forced to keep up with the Joneses, thus make the content discovery much better as you have passionate curators out there grinding, without those pesky autovoters ruining everything.
Hopefully something beneficial for all will come out of this. When I arrived back from vacation I wasn't warming up to the idea of making changes again. The EIP never reached its full potential, but it also added a few kinks that need to be worked out.
Some people really do want out of curation and feel basic staking rewards are the answer. That pisses me right off though because in some ways the ideas are sold as only a way to protect their bottom line, and the rest of us are viewed as leeches. I come to that conclusion when reading between the lines.
I see far more potential in curation and the fact a consumer of arts/entertainment/information gets compensated for their time and a potential return on the money spent. Some curators act like promoters or agents. Freelance promoters, pushing work up into the light of day so the consumers can see. They got fat wallets and earn a nice cut. That is so normal in entertainment. Other curators with the small votes are the butts in the seats. This is where I see Hive being innovative. Creating content and getting paid happens everywhere; it's nothing new. Basic tipping models don't work with crypto if the plan is to create demand for the token. That's just new money in that'll be heading straight out the door. Consumers here under this model can drive the value up steadily even during crypto market crash time, since it's not the blockchain they're investing in, it's the entertainment, which isn't attached to any market trends. That gives millions of consumers thousands of reasons to invest, making the target easier to hit. Like a shotgun. There's no need to depend solely on speculators when there's a product being offered that has nothing to do with investing.
It's important to get this right. And yeah adding in a few perks on the side is always wise. Emulating other styles/projects in existence won't make the crypto crowd suddenly pay attention to Hive though. If they can already earn staking rewards with 100 other tokens, the 101st won't be where everyone comes running. We need to keep doing what we do, but do it better, and continue to be innovative.
I use this platform daily, have for years. I use it in pretty much every way imaginable. I create content, both written and video. I collab with various people to do group content. I've been protected by this platform when web 2 banned me. I'm also one of the largest investors, putting over 7 figures of my money into this place, through buying the token, creating projects ontop of Hive, doing contests, etc.
So when I suggest changes to this platform, it isn't for "anyone else" it is for me. Yes, I can be a greedy bastard sometimes. But when I use this platform as much as I do, I notice the pain points in a unique way others may not see. I can cover both the content side and investor side because I am 100% fully both. So when I suggest these changes this is what I want, would make my life better and make me enjoy the platform, as a whole being, creator/investor, you can't have one without the other, even you are an investor friend as you hold Hive. Investor can be a nasty word but I don't see investors or content creators, I just see people on Hive doing their thing. Of course, I can't force these changes down people's throats, I'm not the owner of this chain, I can simply gauge interest and see if my ideas are even remotely popular.
I only know what's best for me as well. Like when I said I want to see easy access to all Hive apps to be included along with the social setting/content distribution area - an all in one solution - that comes from being a lazy consumer. Didn't come here to hunt easter eggs LOL! Then I just assume developers and investors would benefit if these features were used more simply because using them doesn't become a battle to find them. I don't know that for sure, it just makes sense to me, and I don't expect to see a disorganized mess streamlined overnight either, just because I said it. Knowing I won't see instant results won't stop me from offering my ideas though. And I'll often repeat myself like I did here in the comments. You know where I stand on some things, others don't, so it's worth mentioning time and time again any chance I get until it clicks.
What if you delegate your Hive Power to one of the curation groups on the platform? If they offer a good ROI, wouldn't it be better? And you'd be contributing to the platform and your investment.
Sure, I believe both options should be availble. One issue with delegation is the fact you can't vote with your stake any longer, and it takes 5 days to remove which is 5 days of loss in rewards. But both options would be great as you could potentially earn more by delegating.
If for example dormant (or non-voting) accounts get 1% now and under the new system 8%, where does all this extra HIVE (HP) come from? The rewards pool springs to mind, and if so that would dilute it to the detriment of the manual (or auto-voter) curators. There are a LOT of dormant accounts out there, some of them large. I like the idea in theory, but my question remains.
id be interested to know if it would make a difference to amount of people currently keep their hive on exchanges and what would that mean.
Blurt has a higher interest rate. (think it comes from both authors and curators pie) not quite sure of ROI but made it easier to just delegate stake out to someone who posts and curates there.
Most of the HIVE is sitting on exchanges, we can see that from the pablo reports every day. This would involve powering up that HIVE, which makes it non-liquid and susceptible to that 13 week power-down.
I think @blocktrades indicated that shortening this is not on the agenda, though it's not been a bad move for STEEM.
It would come from the reward pool. I was told the idea that makes a blockchain action every so often, let's say 6 months, to be eligible for such an interest hike. The thing is, with the combo of a longer voting window, currently, 5mins could be 2-24 hours, this will reduce the amount autobots make and increase the amount manuals make. If we then had large accounts that didnt want to vote sit back idle, collecting 20-30% less than active curators, the manual curators would earn more. So while this may seem like a hit to the reward pool, the fact is the very same people autovoting making 20%+ atm, will have that sliced in half at the very least.
Instead of the massive accounts dominating who gets rewards how about we put that same same interest on savings accounts and get some of that hive off the exchanges while giving the newbs a chance to give pennies to their friends from the hive not being powered up?
I am not an expert on this topic.
But I think that going out to vote organically adds a lot of value to the platform and I think that real interaction is what the community needs.
I repeat, I don't know anything about curator and content creator earnings percentages.
What I do know is that if I had great voting power, I would go out to vote every day.
Hahaha that strange, I have a low vote faith power and even so I go out every day to vote to give love to the entire Community.
El sistema está diseñado para que siempre ganen los más grandes y los que más dinero tienen . . . La comunidad somos los que hacemos el trabajo ( el proletariado XD ).
Entonces debemos compartir ese pensamiento con los de arriba, con los que tienen el poder, para ver si eso cambia.
I was idle for 6 months during the initial outbreak. That's 6 months of being 100%. I didn't even have anyone on auto vote.
So it's a good idea to do something with my wasted 100% power.
That is the only other option, isn't it? Being forced to auto vote, which can actually be destructive to your investment. Unless you hire quality control to make sure who you auto vote didn't turn to milk the system (very common when content creators get rained votes no matter what they create)
What I also believe this change will do is stop auto votes altogether. Because auto votes can get downvoted, where as your passive income is stress-free. What we will see is people who actually want to curate, curating.
I like this idea, having the curators who are willing to curate deciding what should trend will be good for overall quality of Hive and it will hopefully start to decrease to use of upvote bots.
Posted using Dapplr
I personally like the solutions that give more options and place for maneuvers, so it sounds good to me, at first sight at least ... but I don't understand this economics much, so I can't imagine all the negatives if it would be any. Sounds like a good move to make investors more comfortable ... one can some times vote, sometimes not ... earn more or less ... cool, sounds like more freedom of choice and there is still incentive to curate.
I like this. When people don't have to vote, I believe people will end up voting because they just like curating and enjoy the game theory of getting good content noticed and sharing in the rewards, which might make the curation more organic.
We might even have the reward pool influenced by smaller stakeholders more than large ones, if most large ones opt out of curating. And smaller stakeholders have the widest distribution so the reward pool will be driven by more people, more diversity, wider distribution...
This would probably kill manual curation almost entirely - certainly in the short term - given the unused stake ATM, with inflation more widely distributed 4% extra probably wouldn't make manual curation worthwhile, only auto voting.
In this system, good manual curators could earn up to 20-40% more than idle curators. The ones earning 40% more would be your "elite" curators always finding the best content. I believe 20% bonus is enough for most people that want to curate to curate. What it will do however, is people who dont want to curate, they won't have to. Voting for the sake of voting causes more harm than good.
Especially with that clarification, I like this idea.
I would still manually curate (for what my 1 cent vote is worth,) but wouldn't feel bad when I miss a day or two.
I would also still have the incentive to comment or produce new work, since that still pays the most for small accounts like mine!
You know why I know this is true. Right now I could delegate 1 mil HP at 9.5% APY. These people will use that HP to curate and make more than the 9.5%.
Doesn't delegating for profit reek of vote selling to you?
I don't see any difference, myself.
I guess it depends on who you delegate to. The people I delegate to all run curation projects where they upvote good content. It does not matter what happens in the background with the HP it matters what people do with it. Now if the people getting the delegation were selling votes, it would be bad. But if they are doing good curation, it is a good thing.
Which brings us to ganging up to increase rewards,...
I haven't seen much out of the curation groups, maybe it has something to do with me being told when I got here that my content was 'too controversial' to ever get a vote from them.
But, the rules as currently proscribed, do leave little else to do with idle hive.
Any thoughts on taking 5% from the dao and 5% from the curator's side of the rewards and giving it to the savings accounts?
Lock hive three days, get whatever
interestinflation adjustment that 10% divides out to be?Unstaked hive does benefit stake holders, authors, and curators.
If we could get the top 70 accounts in on this we would see vote sizes double and maybe more interest in giving them out.
I'm not agaisnt inflation going to the savings account, I can see the merit in less powered up Hive means more rewards for those that are powered up. Also, for those wanting to get out early, but still want to earn something, can with this.
Yes fair point on wanting remove voting for the sake of voting.
I guess that kind of marginal difference could convince people to stop using the AV.
It's certainly worth considering as a change.
I think the way things are going that delegation to accounts like leovoter will be a viable alternative too.
@leo.voter *
:)
Posted Using LeoFinance
That would be an awesome idea. Instead of losing funds from having 100% voting power you were to gain...
This is actually an idea I highly support.
and sometimes the point of those multiple accounts is to bring attention from an entire trail of votes kind of like I do.
Yes my main vote is worth one penny to two pennies.
However with everybody on my duration trail as well as my additional accounts....
When I vote on people a huge run of votes rewards them further rewarding them.
But yes it would be really nice that we could also have the resource credits build up for account creation so that we can create accounts for friends or projects through our own resources.
That is a really good idea
I don't know if this could avoid the use of autovote but it is still an idea to develop. The more opportunities we offer investors to earn passively, the better.
We could also add an f key Freeze to freeze the HP and find some way to make them profit with interest greater than 1%, delegating them or other but with the possibility of freeing them in a very short time, like an hour at most.
The basic concept is to make them available immediately while the withdrawal of proxies currently require days of waiting... too much time for an investor who needs to move his coins
sounds interesting
Dan I think if content brings money into the system, curation would be automatically more useful.
Advertisement or some other ways. After that, every stakeholder would reward the most useful/potential content for better long-term rewards. The content on hive is a gold pit.
Investors that only want to hold a token can delegate it to someone who does the curation work against a fee from rewards ( and this works from today like curaangel and so on).
Hey Dan!
Having given your post a read through I’m going to weigh in. (Because I liked your arm wrestling picture! That was cool!)
I honestly don’t think your idea is a good one. Everyone who has invested into the Hive Blockchain knows why we are all here. The content! And the community that comes from that content! This is how the golden goose lays the golden eggs.
If there is no incentive to curate that content then their will be a diminishing reason to spend the time and effort generating that content... and that means weaker community as the byproduct of this course of action (or lack thereof).
Curation and content creation are virtuous. Incentivizing both means that you have a sustainable reason to continue to use this blockchain.
When we power up we are investing (not just in ourselves) but we are investing in the community. As investors we rise and fall depending on the health of the network as a whole.
Trust a Metcalfe (Metcalfe’s Law) when I say that both content curation and content creation matter. One without the other means a system failure and that means the failure of the community (most importantly) and the failure of our invested capital.
Definitely it will bring in more investors I think. It will be a true staking reward and will be luring investors compared to other crypt projects. And I think, once they get on here, some of them will turn into curators as well. People first get habituated then addicted - Facebook and Whatsapp are classic examples.
$tangent
Congratulations, @minnowspower You Successfully Trended The Post Shared By @theycallmedan.
You Utilized 2/3 Daily Summon Bot Calls.
TAN Current Market Price : 3.990 HIVE
Hm but doesn't it make large Hive holders less active on the platform? What if the lazy ones who are curating manually think "Why
spend so much of time and manually vote for just 2%?" .
Can't we think of new voting % . Say I have 100% and I haven't voted in 3 days . When I came back to vote , it shouldn't take away 2% per vote but should take less depending on how much time is spent at 100% .
That way , I can vote more number of times per day so the time wasted actually isn't a waste ?
We can cap the maximum number of days maybe so that person who is inactive for 1000 days won't get the benefit of just 0.0001% less VP per vote .
Quality of quantity. I rather have 10 good curators over a 1000 bad ones. We need people who want to curate, not forcing people to curate just to not get their stake diluted. That is a fine game to play but not on the main layer, we must give investors an opt out option, imo.
Why not better just let anyone not willing to actually work to earn new tokens, that they indeed have to see their stake diluted?
My thoughts are discussing such minuscule details while we still have problems with getting new users who would use this chain is inappropriate...
I can understand the pressure of big bags, any other project is growing and funds locked here have stalled very low. I have most of my savings here too. The thing is this sort of thinking doesn't bring real growth.
How do we want to market the Hive? How are we going to improve the user experience? How are we going to support new people here? It takes weeks to months to get it. Not everybody is in love with the idea of decentralization.
When these issues will be solved our bags will grow automatically. Incentivizing people to NOT VOTE seems to be move in the opposite direction. Just bringing flat curation seems to solve problems with auto voting and will support new accounts.
Believe it or not but you can do multiple things at the same time. Hive is rapidly being scaled, the core devs have meetings bi-weekly, and more work is being done on this chain by this community, myself included than ever before. The next hard fork is about all the changes we want to make going into the long haul.
You don't go out and get users just to get users. These "heavy bags" are not heavy at all, I'm not looking to sell for a very long time, price dosen't affect me in the slightest. Right now is the prime time to fix these minuscule details you mention, for me, some of these things are not minuscule at all, having correct tokenomics, sinks, and faucets are the most important thing to any crypto project. But not trying to die on the hill. Just letting you know, if you want something done on hive, do it.
Thanks for the answer and all of your involvement here, I appreciate this! I try to follow what's going on in terms of development and discussion where HIVE is heading but obviously I could miss something. There are some things impossible to be done from the level of the individual. I'm interested in steering the discussion in the direction that seems to be needed at the moment, trying to add my 3 cents, and willing to engage on the technical level available to me. I don't want to just be that whining guy.
From my perspective, at this point, tokenomics seems to be good enough but the balance of token distribution and network robustness seems to be omitted topics to some extend. The key point for me is that: growing user-base and buzz should have a much bigger weight.
Cheers!
Well said! I totally concur with you here. Merely flat curation, getting rid of this current stupid curation curve and voting time frame and making every author's content evergreen to earn rewards forever, among many other good and healthy things, would lead us to be much closer to the financial goals and objectives that everyone would expect around here.
But yeah! everyone sees thangs according their very own mindset. };)
It's already half a year since I stopped paying attention to my voice power. In my opinion, the opportunity for interaction has a much higher value than the theoretical difference with the possible profit from Curations.
I think it's a good idea. An alterantive of course would be to lease your HP on dlease which seems to work out okay
leasing has the issue of not being able to use your stake + a 5 day wait to get your funds back. if I had the option, I much rather keep full control of my stake, IE vote when I want.
yeah, agreed. But at least it's still an option for people who don't know what to do with their stake.
Yeah I agree. leasing has the issue of not being able to use your stake + a 5 day wait to get your funds back. And as for keep full control of your stake and only vote when you want, clearly there is no need you earn anything when you don't vote either.
Savings with interest especially with the way the world is right now people might come.
Congratulations @theycallmedan, You Earned 0.716 TAN & Curators Made 0.501 TAN.
Join CORE / VAULT Token Discord Channel or Trade TANGENT Token
TAN Current Market Price : 1.370 HIVE
Is it always the best idea to join voting trails than not using your voting power at all?