RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

smooth in #steem • 7 years ago (edited)

The highest ROI even for smaller accounts is to find unknown content that figures to be successful once it becomes visible and vote on it. You won't earn as much as a larger account in absolute terms, but you may actually earn more relative to your SP level (return on investment).

Voting mechanically for authors with the best track record doesn't work to generate the highest return because you have to vote earlier and earlier to get ahead of everyone else doing the same thing, which then reduces the curation rewards (the system docks them back to the reward pool for votes before 15 minutes).

7 years ago in #steem by smooth

0.00 BPC

Sort:

Trending

[-]

valued-customer 7 years ago

The ROI available to such small curators is so insignificant that it is ignored.

Curation rewards do not create incentive to curate good content.

All they do is create financial incentive to corrupt curation for profit, and only for substantial stakeholders. They are a drag on Steem and basically a tax on capital gains.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

iflagtrash 7 years ago

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

0.00 BPC

12 votes

[-]

kawaiicrush 7 years ago

Dear @valued-customer

IMO I see the present issues with whales circle jerking, downvoting as a hole in the bottom of the bucket. These solutions only appear to widen this hole. I wish I had higher SP to give you larger upvotes Sir. Your comments are fantastic and you really hit home with every point.

Great work.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

iflagtrash 7 years ago

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

danmaruschak 7 years ago

The highest ROI even for smaller accounts is to find unknown content that figures to be successful once it becomes visible and vote on it.

If there are N low-reward posts the odds of finding one that will be a hit are very low. Is there an effective method for finding posts that "figure to become successful"? If there is why aren't people using that mechanism today? Is the argument that they're not but they would if curation rewards were ~2X what they are today?

Voting mechanically for authors with the best track record doesn't work to generate the highest return because you have to vote earlier and earlier to get ahead of everyone else doing the same thing, which then reduces the curation rewards (the system docks them back to the reward pool for votes before 15 minutes).

Do you have some kind of evidence or analysis for this assertion, or is this speculation?

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

smooth 7 years ago (edited)

Is there an effective method for finding posts that "figure to become successful"?

Well, that is the competitive skill in curation, and there is no cookbook approach to it. There are different methods that can get there from just being a good judge of content popularity to things like machine learning.

If there is why aren't people using that mechanism today

A few are, and if you look at the highest ROI accounts by curation that is generally what you will find them doing. A big reason though, is that with 25% curation it is very hard to overcome the natural 4x advantage of just self-voting or delegating to a bid bot. The change from 25% to 50% base curation share is a step to rebalance the system back toward better ROI for curation.

Do you have some kind of evidence or analysis for this assertion, or is this speculation?

Yes, there have been numerous posts analyzing voting times over the years. I don't have a link handy but the analysis has been done, and it agrees with the game theory (which is itself not mere speculation, it is a theory that is shown to be predictive).

0.00 BPC

[-]

novacadian 7 years ago

... the system docks them back to the reward pool for votes before 15 minutes).

My understanding is that since HF20 rewards from votes prior to 15 minutes goes to the author and no longer back to the reward pool. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

0.00 BPC

[-]

svamiva 7 years ago

It's the other way around, before HF20 to the author, after to the pool.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

smooth 7 years ago

False.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

novacadian 7 years ago

Thanks @smooth.

0.00 BPC