Okay. So the way I understand this works now is the self-upvoter keeps all of the rewards that they give themselves within the first few minutes of doing so, including all of what would go to curation, with diminishing returns up to and then through the 15th minute, as well as getting up to all of the portion of the curation from the upvote of others depending on when they place their upvote.
If I am understanding that correctly, that means no one upvoting now should do it within the first 15 minutes if they hope to have some of the curation rewards.
With HF 20, the way I understood the change would work is that the portion of the self upvote that could be set aside for curation after a few minutes through the 15th and so on will instead go to the reward pool. Now, you're saying that anyone else who votes within that 15 minute period could have at least portions of the curation reward end up back in the reward pool and distributed to the posts with higher rewards, too, which if such is the case, is pretty self-defeating.
I guess I'm going to need to go back an reread the last few updates. Also, I believe the window is being reduced from a total of 30 to 15 anyway. Haven't seen that talked about lately but it was in an earlier update.
Regardless, it seems to me that this could be more readily solved if instead of returning to the reward pool, the allocation went to curation for that particular post. Since some of the higher SP folks are asking for a 50/50 split to encourage more curation, this change as described will be taking a step back.
Yes, that's how it works. All of the early-voting curation rewards that now go to the author would go to the pool instead. (If you think about it, just trashing the self-vote rewards doesn't help because you can always use a bot vote or a dummy account instead.)
That would definitely be a better solution. A big self-vote at the beginning would be an incentive for more people to vote on the post, which I suppose might be an issue, but it would be an improvement over the proposed method and might be an improvement over the current method.
when is this ridiculous change going to take place?
And I'm going to tag a few of my friends and see if they are aware of this... What do you all think: @abh12345 @paulag @danielsaori @jackmiller @sircork @comedyopenmic? You are all witnesses, is this something you agree with or disagree with?
We don't know.
I'm going to write up a new post with a clearer discussion of this issue based on the long discussion with eonwarped here, if anyone you tagged wants to wait for that. This one is really something of a shitpost that went viral somehow.
@tcpolymath are you backing away from your assertion that this is taking money from the people's posts and sending it to the few that can afford to be "popular"? I hope not, because I think you hit the nail on the head with this one! I am eagerly awaiting your next post about it, if you think to let me know when its out that would be awesome!
No, it's just stated differently. Destroying your rshares - whether it's this method, voting on declined payout posts, flagging, or just sitting at 100% VP - distributes that part of your stake reward to active posts based on popularity.
I don't have plans for yet another post on the topic at this time, but nobody's come along to argue with me on the most recent one yet.
So I read your first post right?... I want to make sure because I want to make a stink at least a little if I read it right. Basically, they are taking money from the post and paying "someone other than" the curator or the author. And that someone will be the people who can afford to buy their posts to the top of the chain. Is that about it?
Yes.
Maybe the goal is to encourage/force people to buy into the system by raising the barriers for those that wish to join through posting content and curation? I can see how this could be attractive to an administration.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention @davemccoy. And thanks Tim for highlighting it in this post.
I have to do some more reading to get a better understanding. Don’t recall this as a conclusion after studying the initial hf20 proposal. Or is there anything new, recently suggested?
When you get time it would be great to know what you thought. It does seem like they are taking money from people's posts and then giving it to reward the higher earning posts! The rich get richer!
On reading the initial detail of the voting window/curation rewards change 6 months or so ago, this was not how I understood it. (And thought the rewards would be put into the pool of the actual post being curated).
I'm hoping the pool is bigger for all, but it sounds like big votes (bot votes) could potentially scoop up most of the 'extra' rewards. Not ideal if so :/
As always, more reading required - tag me in if you spot something Dave, cheers!
@abh12345 I look forward to you learning more about it... If it was how you read it the first time, I would say nothing...I frankly don't care who gets the money from the post (author or curator)...But taking money away from a post just to add it back to the pool, just adds another layer of absurdity that we will have to adjust to...And the optics are horrible.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out, and I'm hopeful it's not as bad as folks suspect. STEEM at 1.7 right now, about time we had a lift!
I'm part of the @noblewitness team with @sircork, and if I'm understanding this correctly, I don't agree with this at all. As stated above, this is altogether worse than the reward distribution system we have now.
I mean it shifts the time, people adjust their bots, life overall, doesn't change much at all, and the way I read it, the spurious rewards go back into the pool, not to the high profile stuff some are reading it as. I could be wrong. Your mileage may vary. Always assume there is reason though for the "top" to spin things in ways that don't hurt them.
My thoughts exactly! I hope there is some pressure that you guys can put on to stop it... If they are going to take away from the author of a post, then they should give it to the curators of that post. It shouldn't be given to the "pool". In my opinion of course. Thanks for the reply! and nice to meet you @anarcho-andrei!
Not a problem. Nice to meet you too, @davemccoy!
@anarcho-andrei 😀
@davemccoy I am looking at some data on this, will respond with a post
This is how I read one of the earlier @steemitblog updates regarding HF20 and agree with you that a better option might be to 'boost' the curation pot for the actual post being curated.
How with this pan out? Sounds like 'more for everyone', but could actually be more for the ones at the top :/
It's more for the ones at the top but it's less more for them than the hf20 proposal, if that makes sense. Moving from the current system it would take away from authors (particularly people who are exploiting the bug but also some innocents) and distribute that in a stake-weighted fashion among the voters on the post. So it still benefits the biggest voters on each post but it doesn't give value to the site's biggest voters from posts they didn't vote on like the hf20 proposal does.
Anything that increases the percentage of rewards paid to curation is always going to be more for the top in some fashion unless the core algorithm is changed.
no, proposed solution is better. Giving the curation share from a big self vote to curators of that particular post is very easily gamed, and would be gamed. All an author has to do is set a second account to upvote the post at optimal curation time to get the reward from the self vote. Returning it to the pool is much fairer as it is impossible to game by the individual self voter.
They can still do exactly this by waiting fifteen minutes, voting with the sockpuppet account, and immediately self-voting.
yeah fair enough that is exactly true :) Ultimately, proposed change as is still decreases the % of the reward pool dominated by the self voting behavior more than returning that reward to the reward pool of the individual post. it isn't a hypothetical "if" a huge account that self votes will set up a bot system to maximize return from the self vote under any new system, it is a certainty.
Think about the huge sums we are talking about at the top end - the haejin's of the world - I think it is clearly better that the large share from the self vote should be distributed to the pool vs. stay in the post where ranchorelaxo will get almost all of it. And also think about what you want to be motivating - do you really want to motivate people to upvote haejin and similar posting so that they can get the curation reward? Whatever small chunk of the extra curation returned to the Haejin post pool under your proposal that is not gobbled up by ranchorelaxo will go to users in the proportion that they upvote a haejin post... LOL
You would rather increase the curation pool on a haejin post vs. send that huge chunk out to all the other posts? Think about it as simply as you can. I am not taking the time to look up what % of the reward pool haejin dominates right now - lets call it 10%. If the chunk of curation from the haejin self vote is returned to the reward pool at large, haejin only recovers 10% of it. If that chunk of curation stays within the haejin post itself the haejin/ranchorelaxo combo recovers almost all of it and whatever they don't recover goes to people who upvote a huge self vote abuser. I don't think this is what we want to incentivize.
You are better at reading than me... lol (I was good at math in school though ;) )
If you do get into the weeds and figure this out, please let me know your thoughts Glen... I think it sounds horrible and will make things even more lopsided on the surface. But you always have a good level head, so I would like to know what you dig up!