One account, one vote (1A1V), sounds good in theory
No. It sounds a lot like socialism. It creates an injustice. A disincentive to earn/invest in the token.
A good theory is a theory that works in reality. Capitalism is where economic power flows to people who are productive and make the most money. This is an ideal. "One economic unit one vote" is the ideal.
Please read: Capitalism the unknown ideal by Ayn Rand.
The point of SMTs is that they give anyone the ability to create their own, custom-tailored, hyper-efficient cryptocurrency with Proof-of-Brain mechanisms. Everyone, regardless of their economic ideology will be able to create a token based on that belief-system and either use, or not use, Oracles to further refine the distribution of that token. These tokens will then compete to prove their value to the market. You could, for example, only allow your token to be distributed to people you believe to be "real capitalists." Doesn't that sound nice? ;)
it sounds nice. but it needs to be battle tested. you guys don't have a testnet yet. when exactly is the launch? what makes you so certain that this system will work as intended? how confident are you in the sheer number and the effectiveness of the oracles?
i couldn't care less about the SMTs themselves but what outside influence are they going to bring into the community? how many new meaningful reward pools are they going to create? with what size? do you guys have big players under the table that are planning to launch their own SMTs?
I love SMT's. My only objection is the quote I mention. 1P1V is not an ideal in any economic protocol as far as I can tell. The reason is that there is no reward for competence. An idiot gets as much influence as a Dan.
P.S. I wrote about sub-steems before it was an idea.
Under quadratic curves and 1P1V, Curation Rewards go disproportionately to the more competent. Though I am not convinced this would always include Dan :P
Edit for context: Curation under these rules becomes a game of skill and specialized knowledge, on a community by community basis.
I am all for linear reward curves. Any move away from this I see as an injustice.
For STEEM, I would agree. But these are new, opt-in cryptocurrencies. At last, we will see the market decide :)
hi @ned. just a few concerns.
how confident are you that there will be a market for SMTs? what makes you certain that there will be many competing SMTs that people are willing to trade and pay for?
Imagine a SMT with 1P1V only emits 0.5% emissions per year and that’s enough to create a highly effective autonomous content curation system. What’s the problem with that? “Ayn Rand says this” is nice argumentative rhetoric but it does not capture nor disprove the collective benefits these distros can provide.
People are not equally competent. Some are better than others and for that reason deserves more influence. The "problem" you are trying to solve will in most, if not all systems be a net negative. You are wasting a lot of time with this flawed ideal.
People are not equally competent is a premise of the system. Those who are more competent earn more.
Earning more for competence is good but just one side of the coin. Also having influence follow competence is an ideal.
I wouldn't say that experimenting is a waste of time. AFAIK, both Oracles and SMT won't affect the consensus token (STEEM) distribution directly, thus there is nothing to be worried about, and we will be able to determine which reward distributing system works the best.
I am simply trying to dispel the notion that "one body one vote" is a good idea. It's not.
Yeah, maybe, but it's gonna be up to the SMT creator to choose a reward distribution system. One may decide to not use Oracles and 'one person one vote' at all.
Under Quadratic Influence, it’s not simply 1P1V. I think we need to acknowledge that’s the actual basis for bringing up 1P1V. The combination incentivizes quality, influential authors and intelligent curation.
best option imo would be if sp had diminishing returns. I don't think ppl hate stake weighting entirely its just kind of offsetting when people realize that theres only a small portion of the reward pool is even for for grabs to anyone who hasnt been here for over a year
However, when the lever —machine(SP)_ is made very large, the contribution ratio of the individual —driver(Steemian)_ is very small. At that time, capital or PoB were at work.
权利需要放在笼子里。
Rights need to be placed in cages.