It will give extra incentives to properly evaluate content. Don't really want to get into details here, but it's not really throwing darts at a board as many people are claiming. The steem system needs tweaks to motivate better behaviors, and a functional system will actually get us very far. Everyone is so anchored to their ways and resist change. To be fair, many believe the changes may be too much, but I think that they are in the right direction and well motivated. Equilibrium will shift, and will attack the behavior it is designed to attack (you can read some thoughts about the specifics in my blog if you want).
To reply to a specific comment in the main blog,
does the curation split or reward curve of the STEEM token really matter? Does it help us achieve that goal or does it distract from it?
It does matter. Proponents of EIP are saying exactly that better economics will get us a better platform. Yes, we are building good bridges into other types of systems and that can happen in parallel, but the biggest one of all: Steem, could use some TLC. We can push for changes that improve both the main system and encourage SMTs.
Keep in mind, it's not actually that much more time to incorporate these changes, compared to other goals. So I say tweak them. The whole mechanism is a game, and like any other game, it needs balance changes over time to correct the meta.
So in essence, please don't bring new people to the platform, because only thing they will be able to do is leave. big acc, that we want to change their behavior, will not vote for them because, well why vote them when they know it could be that only few minnows will also vote for them. minnows should find 10 acc that have a decent content with a bit of organic votes, and some whales votes and just autovote for them. minnows voting for small acc will just be impossible, with a lot of 0 if they do.
in short term, punishing thousents because of hundred.
Even after reading all bunch about this, and reading your posts that are really well written, i could be wrong, and i would really want to know why am i wrong. because i only got 1 answer on this, and it was everyone will benefit with more curation, how do you not see that, you are just blind.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So because of how curation works, auto voting 10 popular posts is not a good strategy in general. If you are not first, the share of curation you are getting is not going to be that great. And you can auto vote earlier and earlier to sacrifice curation to find a sweet spot. But if everyone is doing it, you may really find that you're not left with much. You'll get something, but actually you get more if you discover a new post, and share it with others and get them to vote too.
The problem with thinking about 50/50 and lower end cuts is that even though on paper it just sounds like a pay cut for the little posts, it may not work that way once people actually start seeking out content due to the increased incentives (the curation curve is key here, because "just auto vote" is really not that great of a strategy), as well as penalties for keeping lazy behavior (which is what I've focused my posts about).
I'm not sure if I've fully addressed your concerns, because it's not going to be perfect by any means. But essentially, penalizing "lazy behavior" forces alternative considerations, and that will have cascading effects. Is it enough? Will it work? I can't guarantee it.
It's not obvious at all, and even worse is that it's not guaranteed, so you do have a point to be concerned.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
so the premise is that people who now just upvote themselves will now look for new undiscovered content and also share it with other people to convince them to vote. not really seeing this, but hope i am wrong.
i suck at this nevertheless and vote for things that i like when ever so i will probably just get less, but who cares... need to stop reading about this.
Thanks for the effort.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i feel that this change heavily depends on downvotes and if everyone will downvote the "bad behavior" it could maybe work. but then when you think about the downvote you will think about "judge not if you are not ready for judgment" "before you point your fingers, make sure your hands are clean" and the throw the first stone thing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And what is bad behaviour?
If my political views are not favoured by you, I must be flagged? For instance I saw someone get trashed (by a bot) because he mentioned an article by Alex Jones.
I'm just wondering who is going to trash the very big accounts because their posts are crappy? Just because someone got in early and built up their SP, it does not mean they are worthy steemians. If they are exempted, then how can steemit improve? (ahhh, but they are making the big delegations to the flag bots, so not likely they will be trashed, is it?)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
nah i don't care about your different view on anything :D one downvote on something that you don't like is ok, why not, but a scripted organised attack is just stupid.
i heard somewhere that some bigger acc plan to downvote some bigger acc that are selfvoting shitposts and similar. we shall see
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I dont know. Im just not convinced by this change. I would love if bots would stop and people would curate more but it feels like it will cost too much. I heard there will also be something called the SPS that will reduce author rewards even more.
I would love for curators to earn more but losing 30-40% of my rewards plus the 10% dtube already takes is scary to me. I dont want to lose motivation now that i started posting consistently.
You say to Bil.prag:
If that is true, and to earn as much as now i would have to have 30$ posts instead of 15$, how can i expect that it will increase that much if curators wont want to upvote me because the curation share will be bad?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well that's the balance. They have to predict what will be popular, that isn't popular already. If they see it should be worth more then it makes sense for them to vote on it. So if you are already popular I don't really see that as a worry.
Also, big picture: if the reward pool is being used more efficiently, then it is producing value and everything will be worth more. So it really is hard to say.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is how i feel after reading everything. :D
But honestly, i really dont want to lose what i have now. I dont use bots and i work hard on my content. I see someone say i will have my rewards reduced by 40% and i cant feel happy with that.
Even you write about what is popular what is not, what is efficient and what is not but i only know for sure that i will have reduced earnings. :(
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I can't say that that's true "for sure". But I also can't deny that it's possible. But the efforts to adjusts incentives is an honest one, and it's just not accurate when people paint it as "stealing from the poor" or "stealing from the authors".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is not stealing because how reward pool functions but it does look like "changing where river flows."
Oh well we will see how it goes. ☺
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In the original HF21 article I read, there was the comment that 50/50 is not good enough, it should be Curators 80% and authors 20%, but it is better we do not do it now, let everyone get used to the reduced rewards and at the next HF go for it.
It is just like the outside world. The Big Tech mentality is alive and well in here.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is a very bleak future you see. I will wait a bit and see what happens. I dont think those that proposed the system would want to destroy their own investment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
They can, but they still lose compared to now with the new rules. There's a lot of shifting that will happen especially with 50/50 and dealing with the leakage to external curation votes, and incentives to move away from bid bots, and the potential downvotes is even more motivation. Yes, they'll do their best, but they are actually being penalized compared to now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And how do you imagine they will be getting 40% more? These principles already take into account maximizing behaviors. Unless you tell me the top X whales all agree to indiscriminately downvote everyone else, which I highly doubt. If you are a whale, and are just playing maximization, your incentive is to downvote other highly valued posts, presumably made by another whale, rather than small fish.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
{Keep in mind, it's not actually that much more time to incorporate these changes} cool i like your answer,
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit