Lots of great thoughts here, Kevin. Many of them have been discussed at length, and I do think we’re moving towards more consensus through these continued discussions. I don’t know if we’re there yet.
While you and I might say, “Yes, we need a separate downvote rewards pool to encourage effective protection of the rewards pool,” some people are arguing to remove flags and downvotes all together because they’ve been so abused by retaliatory flagging by large SP accounts. If flags can’t be countered in the last 12 hours before payout, and we start rewarding flagging directly (instead of the current indirect reward of protecting your overall, long-term investment), will we create new problems with more people leaving and complaining about being “censored” because “their” rewards were “taken” from them? Many people don’t understand potential payouts or what true censorship is. We have education work to do there.
I think some changes to the reward curve to give a little extra rewards for pile on voting could be healthy and Dan talked about his concerns over linear rewards early on. That said, I also remember when so many people got absolutely nothing for their content and how linear rewards enabled them to get something, even without a trending post. Maybe a small change could be made here for a set period of time and then reevaluate.
I’m very interested in the 50% curation, but I’m also concerned it’s just funneling more rewards to those who already have a lot of Steem Power. Unless we adjust how curation rewards work, those with little Steem Power would earn very little rewards via curation so how will they ever get ahead, even if their content is great and begins to get voted on? I think some will complain the rich will just get richer if too much of the rewards focus on curation which goes mostly to those who already have Steem Power. Maybe it will incentivize more people to invest in Steem?
Part of me still thinks the problems here are psychological. If huge whales are trying to extract too much value instead of using the value they already have to protect and grow the collaborative commons we have here, then they essentially destroy their own provisions. If, instead, they thought in terms of rational, long term value creation (instead of irrational, short-term value extraction), we might all benefit more.
I know many disagree with me here and think it’s just about adjusting what systems are in place that people can exploit. Maybe they are right. I still think much of the value we see here is because of people who choose not to exploit, even if given the opportunity to do so.
Updated, added more counter-arguments:
I agree with most of what you're saying.I think this is a non-problem. All SP users would want to accumulate anyway, so why does it make a difference with a lot of SP? The rich will surely get richer regardless, if they don't waste their potential. The problem is getting voter's self-maximisation actions align with the behaviour that ought to be rewarded on the platform, which is curation / distribution / supporting curation services. The action has to be almost synonymous with SP accumulation, it's not a bad thing. I think with this, even the likes of @freedom, @haejin, @trafalgar will start to use their votes for the greater good.
They can work for curation groups like @curie which has already established a decent workflow that adds to the platform that can be replicated. Also, with a curation economy actually going on, more valuable contributions will likely get rewarded.
Re: about flags:-
Reddit has downvotes even for the end of retaliation, by the way. It's something users will need to adapt to. It's likely a feature that adds more to the platform rather than the other way around, imo.
This part I'll be disagreeing. Technology leads society leads technology, ad infinitum. The tech is making those being "rational" lose out too much, it's hard to tell people to change and there are no signs of users following what is considered the better course of action for the long-term. So the tech needs to enable profit-maximisation behaviour in better directions, which I think could be fixed as per the proposal. I think traf's explanations are very good here and it actually changed my mind. Like if Steem's econs is actually the equivalent of flying too close or too far away from the sun, then we're just fighting against all odds to make things work. Traf may not be making such an irrational move after all, since it's a problem that will likely be woken up to and addressed eventually at some point for a good dump, if the platform is still in public interest..
This is right of course, but doesn't address the problem. They're absolutely right.. what you've just said is almost equivalent as saying "it's okay, leak Steem's treasury to the worst behaviours on the platform.. it's okay, we moral upstanding people will take the hit until they go away.. somehow.."
Again, those taking a stand is currently getting "taxed" by the worst behaviours on the platform. On equal grounds, if SP accumulation points per month for those taking a stand and actually contributing to the network is only +100 points / month, while those exploiting are getting +1000 points / month. In 10 months, the difference is 9000 points. This is the chasm we're facing at the moment.. and good news is that it can likely be fixed, as proposed.
I also like the "flying too close to the sun" analogy. You make a lot of great points here, and I agree with them all. I do think value creation should be the focus AND those with a disproportionate amount of STEEM should individually restrain themselves from extracting too much value. This is the part that causes problems from a mentality standpoint. If the largest whales were to take the lion-share of curation rewards under a new economic system, we'd have the same problem again, just a different flavor. I agree, things can be improved, but there will always be "the problem" of wealth extraction until we think in terms of a collaborative commons and not in terms of a staking coin for maximizing wealth extraction.
Some more thoughts on this (which I think you've already seen): An Argument for Long-Term Rational Self-Interest Versus Short-Term Irrational Value Extraction. When people say no one is taking steps to add value instead of extracting value, I point to my wallet and say, "Really? No one?" I think many are, they just do it quietly. I'm happy with the amount of value provided to me via STEEM, and I don't need to use bidbots or self-voting to extract further value. That said, I also agree more can and should be done to protect the commons and disincentivize others from extracting too much from it.
Thanks for the response! Yup we're converging on something here @lukestokes :).
Now we're seeing value adding services popping up all over Steem. Their existence will likely have a much higher chance of greatly accelerating improvements on the network if those with a disproportionate amount of STEEM find a great reason to use them. The best bet is to encourage that action is the have a result that doesn't lose out in the order of 600-1000% compared to self-voting/vote-trading. 300% may still be too much of a difference to trigger a new behavioural equilibrium, a mere 50-100% difference in results may be possible for the revolution that we need. The problem is that value-adding endeavours are falling back by the order of 600-1000% difference.
I understand that we can promote the culture, but there are others that just want to maximise anyway. The wide gap is causing more and more to join the race, "succumb to the dark side". If the gap is not as wide, maybe it'll be more bearable for most users to do it for the greater good, so to speak. I suspect maybe you aren't "feeling it" because you're a top witness :D it's a different kind of skin-in-the-game..
Check out this video, it's very interesting, showing the difference between aspirations and actions..
Finally, in a voice that might get listened to,...
It's a mistake. The economy has to be designed in such a way that it levels the profitability between vote trading and curation activities, which bridges the gap and has the effect of individuals distributing while at the same time sufficiently accumulating SP.
Or, the community could enforce its own standards.
I think its better that we control ourselves rather than appeal to authority to do it for us.
(If it was up to me the bots would require rewards to be declined.)
The community can't really enforce its own standards given the current economic rules. This is grossly unfair and unsustainable.
For example, during the whale experiment abit and I were using our valuable vote power primarily to downvote non-complying whales, while others including other whales were using their vote power to earn rewards (as long as they stayed below the whale experiment limit). Abit and I were happy to do that for a while in the name of an experiment but would we continue to do it for years? Forever? I think not.
We never asked for one, but I think it is telling that we never received a single donation or even a token of thanks for that experiment.
Everyone wants a better Steem, but few are individually willing to pay for it.
The economic changes are needed to create a fair and sustainable way to accomplish this. Community enforcing its own rules without the right economic structure behind it isn't that.
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?
This! 🙌
Good summary of the individualist responsibility / culture point of view. I think point of view contrasts with the view which places overarching systematic incentives at the core of positive behavior problems.
I lean to the latter. The incentives work whether or not you're aware of them or even factor them into your decisions because the create the outcomes and everyone responds to outcomes. This is where @tcpolymath gets it wrong too. Individual people "feel" the systematic incentives even if they are not aware of it. Rewards subtly (and not so subtly) affect what people determine is cogent to do.
I also think your analysis is wrong here:
It is not necessarily irrational to extract value in the short term, especially when you factor in the unknowable future, difficulty in coordinating among large stakeholders (ref prisoners dilemma), and so on. Changing the rewards structure is I think a good attempt to offset the unknowns and paranoia which is akin to FOMO.
You are both right and wrong imho. If the vast majority of people acted according to that principal it would work. However bringing that mindset about is about as likely as bringing about world peace, most people agree it is a good thing to aim for but it is never going to happen. Human nature just doesn't allow for it, no matter how much people think it should.
No system is perfect, there will always be bad actors but I have to agree with the OP, the key is to align financial incentives with desired behavior.
In trying to achieve that aim, I wouldn't get too caught up in "the rich get richer" mantra. It will happen or they will take their investment elsewhere and everyone will lose. So long as the poor can make enough to make their time worthwhile the platform will work and the cream will rise to the top or reasonably close to it at least.
Make no mistake, it will happen here or elsewhere but if it happens elsewhere this platform will go the way of myspace or bebo and become a footnote in the history of blockchain. It's just a question of when, not if.
I agree the whales could invest their stake in growth rather than quick profit, but maybe some don't see a future for this platform. I really hope it has one and we don't lose this opportunity.
That's my fear exactly. A whale is basically an investor. Short or long term. If the mass is choosing short term there must be sufficient reason to do so.
I think this is a very good point: "If, instead, they thought in terms of rational, long term value creation (instead of irrational, short-term value extraction), we might all benefit more."
But the sentiment seems to be - someone else is abusing the reward pool so why shouldn't I do that as well ? You wouldn't want to loose out right ?
The whole idea of Steemit is to cut out the third party - greedy people like Mark zuckerberg - and we as a whole get to share the rewards of the value we create as a community. But that should also mean that we all take role as leaders. It is sad to see that it seems like we are in the end being just as greedy as any other and just like in Facebook just a few really benefit who are at the top.
On the other hand I don't have upvotes that would be worth 10 of dollars each so it's not easy to say what I would do if I had that kind of Steem Power.
Either way, I think 50 percent curation seems like a good option to try. But I think more importantly people have to think of their own social compasses instead of looking at what others do
Helo @lukestokes
Thanks for stopping by to offer your thoughts on this important subject matter.
I guess you vividly captured my mind here. If the system is skewed to put the rich guys perpetually at advantage, this could cause a lot of middle guys and new guys to leave.
Whatever the case, I guess steemit team and top witnesses will do what's best for us all.
@eurogee of @euronation community
The incentives are already good enough. All shareholders already understands that this is in their best interest to protect Steem blockchain from spam and abuse.
The problem is not with lack of incentives, but with to strong disincentives.
People are afraid of revenge when it comes to flagging. This is simple as that. Therefore we need a way, to allow them flag content responsibly without a fear of being flagged-back
That is not a primary goal of my upcomming project "Wise" (code name: SmartVotes), but it will also allow stronger accounts, to delegate flagging and delegate decision making to smaller accounts.
I think this may cause that owners of smaller accounts will become a little bit more brave.
More details about the project... soon :)
I've been really excited about this project since we first discussed it at a dinner table in Lisbon. :)
The whale experiment made the minnows matter in the math minus the abusive selfvoting/vote selling incentives.
We are doing better because the massive accounts cant suck it all up anymore, not because they recognized the flaw in their plans to grab all the loot they can while they can.
It wont matter what the reward curve is as long as the massive accounts make the place unattractive to the newbs.
Those massive accounts are going to have to keep their greedy grubbies out of the rewards pool and simply ride the price rollercoaster.
IMO.
yeah, I think there's some value to be said for those with the wealth just not being greedy.
Its true, 40% of sp that could vote doesnt.
I just got a comment that the three day average was down close to 30%, too.
The outlier i still see is @dimimp listed in steem reports as todays biggest voter with a selfvote of 143265.
I dont know if that is rshares, mvests, or what, but looking in his wallet he doesnt have ~5x the sp of haejin, but he is listed as making a vote nearly 5x the the size of the selfvote king.
That doesnt add up.
What gives?
That other comment may not make sense unless you put it in the context of my last post.
I was thinking it was odd that you would comment on one of my crap posts.
Now that i have the context correct let me say:
As long as they make the game unattractive to everybody except themselves, what do they expect?
Hi @lukestokes ! Do you also believe that with SMTs and the type of airdrop that @steemhunt created will change the game entirely? Many individual accounts will stay with low SP due to the reason people will start delegating SP to Dapps that will be airdropping their SMTs. This will end up the Steem Blockchain with high power to Dapps that will give ROI to its users in different ways, like Steem and their own SMT.
I believe that will change Steem for good.
By the way, if you get the chance to review the post I made about registration for eosDAC and EOS, your feedback is well appreciated!
Regards, @gold84
Until SMTs launch, it's hard to say what will happen.
Thanks @lukestokes for your feedback!
Regards, @gold84