Yes, i agree, simply downvoting all the time does get old.
I may not have said so at the time, but steemflagrewards has shown that crowd sourcing abuse fighting is going to need to persist.
I think the reason that you didnt get alot of support is because we were too new, too few, and stinc's air of righteousness hadn't as many dents in it.
I bet more than a few troops rally to your side if you did it again.
Not that their collective 21.39stu in votes could do much for you, even after a trippling of vote values, but you'd win the popular vote.
I agree that unless the largest accounts take their thumb off the scales we will be little more than a sycophant boys club.
Have you looked at steemua?
Talk about skinning the newbs to enrich the already rich.
Smdh.
If you did it again, what would you set the limit at given today's price?
steemua? Have not seen.
If you did it again, what would you set the limit at given today's price? Doesn't really apply because the goal was to reduce the extreme superlinear so that smaller accounts have some say rather than literally none at all. With linear we have that already. The problems today are different and more pervasive.
@ steem-ua
'Delegate to us so we can vote more rewards to the top grossers, we might randomly vote you, too!'
I checked out once i found out it is heavily weighted towards how many witnesses follow you.
Just another scheme to enrich the sycophants while remaining subtle enough to scam the newbs, imo.
No doubt about that.
Would a return to the n2 with a soft cap of ~1000mv solve enough problems to justify capping one account investment?
Large investors could always have multiple accounts.
The cap could grow as the middle class expands enough to dilute larger voters, ie, keep the hockey stick on a reasonable curve.
How many >500k usd investors are we actually getting vs how many little investors would we get with the benefits of favoring smaller investments?
Its my assertion that had the experiment continued we would now have many more dolphins with a much larger daily user base.
The mined stake would lose its unnatural effect on who is 'approved' to grow, too.
I don't think so.
Sure but then they vote them together with a bot or something and we end up in the same place as before with very superlinear.
I don't know how much investment we get at different levels. It's pretty hard to measure especially given sock puppet account, stake moved between accounts, and such.
It would require some one substantially invested to keep a rein on the greedy.
Several somebodies would likely have to take one for the team.
It would have to be a community thing, no way the idea passes the gate keepers, no offense.
It appears that stinc has pushed us through a one way gate.
Smdh.
There isn't a lot of support for superlinear now that is true. It would work better with cheap downvotes I agree there. Even the original n^2 with no whale experiment probably would have worked better with cheap downvotes. The original white paper talks about downvoters pulling down the top overpaid posts (the famous crab bucket analogy), but in reality it rarely ever happened because the cost of doing so was too high. Address that and even unmodified n^2 might be significantly better.
The farther we get from the original design the more it looks like we've jumped the shark.
Why the resistence to calling flags downvotes and separating them from reputation?
The obstanancy attached to this simple change is telling, imo.
Well said