Good post.
15 is not necessary though. I explained why in my post, but I'd a user wants the behavior that you described they just need to vote 20 times per day instead of 10, and keep their voting power 'recharged' at 50% instead of 100%.
I don't think a change is needed for 16. As far as I know it already works this way.
What about 13? I feel like that is the most radical thing here and the most interesting
I really liked that.
I brought it up with a few people, and the concerns that were raised were people just creating 10-20 (or however many would be needed) sock puppet accounts to get around it, or creating vote buying/trading hacks. Basically if you go after the people who are abusing the system, they will just adapt and find a new way to do it.
Glad to hear that. If it were to even be considered for the light of day it would have to have serious witness support.
I agree, abuse cannot be stopped. This is wisely noted in the whitepaper, where it's said that as long as abuse isn't rampant it's more or less okay. I feel like @rycharde 's point 13 is something that would raise the barrier to entry to serious abuse to be quite high. Managing that many accounts would take significantly more effort than always up voting yourself for example, or even just voting for your friends.
However it's not just about abuse, far from it. It's about encouraging the majority to vote outwards and to a variety of other posters. So for me it's a question of balancing the incentives around a vision of what kind of place we want to see and how to reward it.
Thanks for your comments. Yes, read your article and the mathematics is correct - I'd not considered it in that way as I myself do a lot of curation so find it useful to use the sliding scale and keep my effective power as high as i can.
So, in your opinion, is there a way of taking something like (13) and (14) forward so that they can seriously be discussed for possible implementation?
I am still looking at how to define the "success" of the overall platform so that any proposed new algorithms should, on average, improve that "success".
Thanks again.
I've tried to push for your idea, but there seems to be a lot of resistance. To start with, you'll want to try and get a few more stakeholders on board. Not sure if he will have time to discuss, but you could try hitting up @jesta on Steemit chat.
Thanks, yes have chatted to @jesta before and he's been very helpful. Haven't as yet had a response on this issue, will try the chatrooms again.
It is difficult to balance the positive and negative algorithms - sometimes they are just not symmetrical, so that trying to invert the algorithm by, say, to improve rewards for collaborative exchanges compared to small cliques runs into other problems of scaling up rewards (potentially with no ceiling) rather than scaling down self-voting/clique-voting behaviour which has a natural floor. Don't know if that is clear - so one has to sell the positive effects of what appears to be a punitive algorithm when it's aim is to encourage positive behaviour.