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

trafalgar in #steem • 7 years ago

Voting bots will likely be strongly deterred by both the addition of a certain amount of free downvotes from a separate pool, as well as more competitive rewards elsewhere in the form of higher curation.

It's difficult to say what the ideal level of voting concentration is other than describing it loosely as the level of concentration that would actually reflect the distribution of rewards if stakeholders voted honestly based on their opinion of the content, and that's precisely what we're going for.

7 years ago in #steem by trafalgar

0.00 BPC

2 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

ew-and-patterns 7 years ago

I would actually join/create a community which downvotes "regular trending bidbot users" everyday with the few free downvotes... and I think others would, too. But I do also think, that more than 2 free downvotes per day would harm the ecosystem more than it would benefit from it.

0.00 BPC

3 votes

[-]

trafalgar 7 years ago

I virtually 100% agree with you here!

The figure I basically had in mind was 25% (or 2.5) per day. Obviously free downvotes have their downsides (toxicity, abuse etc) but they need to be enough to threaten the status quo. I feel that anything between 1.5-3.5 might be a reasonable guess.

So as a self voter and a conspicuous one at that, i'd expect that my farm posts would be nuked to oblivion when these changes are implemented by free downvotes. Good. I, and others like me, will get the message loud and clear and would likely not bother continuing farming, especially when curation is paying a decent amount (say 50%). We will likely not like the fact that others (self voters, vote sellers) get to benefit while we don't. So we'll use our free downvotes to take others down, and paid posts will be pretty high on that list.

The idea is to migrate profitable voting behavior from content indfferent to content reflective behavior. Imagine if the bid bots are now competing as curation services - it'll mean we'll no longer have a proof of brain dead blockchain.

0.00 BPC

3 votes

[-]

ew-and-patterns 7 years ago

I am not sure if this solves the problem of bidbots and self-voting. It will be very hard to bring down a 200$ trending post when it is voted up 13 hours before payout, leaving you with just 1hour to downvote it...
I think bidbots will come up with some autovote function. Pay now, get voted 13 hours before payout...

Maybe (I am very skeptic about it) it is worth a try if nobody figures out something better. But I want a scheduled automatic revoke of these changes UNLESS the community votes to keep it.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

valued-customer 7 years ago

"...distribution of rewards if stakeholders voted honestly based on their opinion of the content..."

That's not at all what you're going for. That's easy to create: simply eliminate curation rewards, and reduce maximum payouts per my proposal. The vast majority of accounts would hugely benefit from that - but that's not your actual goal.

What these proposals do is increase the profitability of self voting and bidbots for large stakeholders - and that's your actual goal.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

iflagtrash 7 years ago

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

0.00 BPC

12 votes