I sure liked the n2 when the whale experiment kicked in, before that it sucked.
I still think a 500mv community enforced soft cap on the n2 brings in the masses.
30 or 40 people making worthwhile money won't cut it.
We got to spread the coin farther.
Abusing us with the ninjamine is real classy, imo.
i agree the post experiment econ was the best, although it wasn't ideal either, as this level of superlinear heavily rewarded collusive vote stacking on certain posts
it was also expensive for abit and smooth running the experiment
i believe with something like n^1.2 or 1.3 up until a certain point, and then linear from there, we could enjoy pretty much all the advantages of n^2 with very little of the disadvantages
in addition, i think a non trivial amount of free downvotes is a must (although 100% is far too much, i think 25% of upvotes is more than sufficient)
increasing curation will further close the gap between voting for legitimately good posts from others and just directly shoving the vote rewards back into your own pocket (which would be much harder with slight superlinear and some free downvotes)
@steemflagrewards has a bot that automates downvotes, if that was modified to include everybody with 1mv or more to enforce the softcap then it wouldn't have to fall totally on the whales.
Bringing back the 4 post soft cap on rewards would cut abuse some.
So would doubling votes to 20.
What do you think of giving curation to downvotes?
Just mirror upvotes.
All good ideas, know any coders?
the experiment partially worked only because the economy was at its infancy and people weren't bothered/sophisticated in trying to get around it
these days, with delegation and whatnot, it's trivially easy to split your stake under multiple accounts and circumvent the measures you suggested
i haven't seen a better set of ideas than higher curation, moderate free downvotes and slight superlinear. I can't think of any obvious ways it can be abused. It does mean we have to accept some of the negatives that come with it like less author rewards (which is a big deal assuming now the econ works and authors aren't just the stakeholders but good content creators), higher toxicity through more downvotes, and somewhat inequality through superlinear.
the idea is to minimize their negative effects while still having enough of these measures to get a working economy.
I was wondering about ganging up sock puppets of whales.
Would that end run a 500mv soft cap?
Do 10 500mv accounts pull enough rewards to make the math unattractive to the minnows?
Is there enough stake with the will to block that?
No doubt that a 4 post soft cap on rewards and a 1% vote rather than 2% would alter abuse dramatically.
Combine the superlinear up to 500mv and we are where we were 2 plus years ago.
How does a large investor feel about splitting stake due to the cap?
How many people buy 250,000 steem at a whack?
I know that is a lot of questions, i hope you can answer them so that i can quit asking folks.
I do know that the top 10 voters take ~27% of the pool each day.
The bidbots take another 30.
Not much left over for anybody outside the top 500 accounts.
Is it any wonder we are having a hard time interesting folks in investing their time just to be excluded from tasting the pie?
https://steemit.com/steemit/@statsmonkey/biggest-upvoters-3132018---part-ii