One idea (not so thought out):
- Vesting rewards are made somehow modestly superlinear (as curation rewards are now)
- If an account upvotes, it forfeits its share of vesting rewards (what you call inflation) for some period of time. This becomes a market (i.e. you don't need a fixed limit) because the rate of return would increase the less stake "opts out" in this manner and larger accounts are more incentivized to not upvote and instead take the vesting rewards since these rewards are superlinear. Small accounts would not care and still upvote because their vesting rewards would be tiny or zero (currently curation rewards are literally zero for the smallest accounts because of rounding).
- Downvoting does not affect the vesting rewards, and might or might not have its own downvoting incentive (designing a workable one seems hard)
The main reason whales are upvoting is curation rewards. If we remove them entirely and implement your idea I think many whales will abstain from voting which will give more power to the minnow. I think your idea is a very good balance, basically even minnows who want more power could just stop upvoting and they would receive more share than other. The problem is that curation rewards offer an incentives to still upvote, if you want your idea to work better you need to remove them entirely so that people have 0 incentives to upvote ( like my proposal did) Seriously talk to the devs about this, and tell them to remove curation rewards. Idk know if you read my post entirely but i explained why curation rewards are bad and serve no good purpose at all.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
check out how much most whales make in curation rewards and you might change you mind about this position.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think he is incorrect. A large portion of the whale voting power that is actually deployed (largely through guilds and bots) does generate large curation rewards, even if not all individual whales do.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well my thoughts on this heads in the direction of what is best for everybody. In my experience without being whale status is this: I vote without even thinking of what is in it for me but instead vote because I know the content contains love, integrity, and understanding. I use Steemit because I love the knowledge base it shares while allowing "me to be me."
Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, etc... are all designs of a social experience where no truth can dwell and no though can shine through because all lies seperate in the end... Meaning,
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes I meant in this proposal to remove curation rewards. Although I have mixed feelings about that, as I do feel that curation rewards (in some form, maybe not the current one) serve a useful purpose. But I do agree the system could work without them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Have you ever discussed this proposal with the devs or did you just come up with the idea?
Also curious to know how curation rewards would serve a useful prupose?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Some similar ideas have been discussed in the context of having "investors class" of SP/VESTS that would incentivize opting out of curation (also something @arhag has discussed/proposed). This particular variant I just came up with.
I don't really have time to get into the question of curation rewards, but some aspects of it are pretty obvious: motivation to buy SP (though as you say, only in large quantities), for those who are good curators, incentive for stakeholders to actively vote and not succumb to voter apathy, etc.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@smooth There is one thing though that your idea doesn't address is that when the steem price increases it makes it more difficult for users to gain influence and so the the incentives to buy steem power will go down over time.
Another thing also is that the influence of minnow will fluctuate a lot more than in what I proposed. I still think the idea has merit though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
it doesn't. At least, not really.
for example, lets say there's 1 trillion vests in the whole system. Steem costs $1. I buy a .001% share for $10, 000.
Now lets say steem doubles in price to $2. You're correct that now, my $10K only buys me a half sized (.0005%) share.
But -- its buying me that share in a double sized system. A system that offers twice the rewards.
FOr example if my $10,000 .001% share of steem buys me a vote worth 10 cents when steem is worth $1, my $10000, .0005% share buys me a vote also worth 10 cents when steem is worth $2.
DOes the guy who bought his $10k worth of steem first, when the price was lower, have an advantage over the other guy who bought it when the price was higher? sure. So for example, if you buy $10K at $1, then i buy it at $2, youre going to have twice (actually 4 times because of quadratic weighting) as much influence as I am. But thats the way its supposed to work
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not 4 times. That only applies to the extent you are the only one voting on the post. If A has 1, B has 2, and C has 3, then A+C yields a reward of 16, but B+C yields a reward of not 64 but 25.
Overall your point that buying influence doesn't suffer much as the price goes up (but does a little, and that's okay) is a good one
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are right about the fluctuation at least. Switching this on or off on say a 24 hour basis might be too much, and the "investor VESTS" idea might be a better way to go. In that case the obvious approach would have it taking 13 weeks to swtich between classes of VESTS, so there wouldn't be wild fluctuations but more likely some sort of loose equilibrium (as there is currently with SP vs. STEEM)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
well, maybe author rewards are also evil then ? )
Since people would keep voting for posts even wuthout curation rewards, I think the same would apply to authors too, they will keep posting even without rewards )
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Curation rewards create a lot of bad incentives ( mainly they encourage bot/fake voting), author rewards don't.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That could be disputed. For example, authors with a following milking it but posting crap because they know their followers often upvote regardless of quality or have low standards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
2 is interesting but disinterested idle accounts would end up accumulating a good deal of the vesting inflation pie for being passive. Would that be a good thing? I don't think it would.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you have to choose your poison here. Whale accounts being active may well be worse for the system than them being passive. If that is the case, it makes perfect sense to reward the passive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There's one other potential poison with the idea. Making vesting rewards superlinear would also act in favor of more concentration (or if you look at the other way, act in opposition to current efforts toward a more even distribution)
Granted, if the whales who all this power was concentrated in weren't voting, that would ameliorate some of the negative effects of high levels of steem concentration. But some (for instance, hesitance of new investors due to the fear of being dumped on) would be unaffected by this abstinence.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
[nested]
They are in practice somewhat superlinear because rewards are, and curation rewards are 25% of post rewards (ignoring reverse auction).
Simplified example would be someone with 1 million SP votes on an unvoted post and generates a $4 post value, so $1 in curation. If someone else with 100 000 SP votes on an unvoted post under the same reward pool conditions, that would generate a 0.04 post value, and 0.01 in curation.
In reality it isn't anywhere near this extreme, but the effect persists.
Maybe, maybe not. In looking at incentives you have to consider that those accounts could become non-idle at any time and begin earning curation rewards and contributing to increased concentration (which as you point out has happened). So ensuring that even currently-idle accounts have a incentive to stay idle (and considering what would happen to concentration if they didn't under each alternative) is an important consideration.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Curation rewards are already superlinear (and very harshly so at the mid-low level where they often round down to zero). I'm not really proposing anything that isn't neutral with respect to distribution at the direct level of curation rewards vs. whatever you get for not curating, and it might on the whole be a net positive for distribution if a wider and flatter base of voting influence means that a wider range of content is rewarded (and less is skimmed by "guilds" and other such schemes).
Quoting myself with emphasis added:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I hadn't actually looked at the equation for curation rewards. I was under the impression that they were based on SP, but linearly so (and i missed the parenthetical statement to the contrary when i replied).
If theyre already superlinear then yeah it would be (or at least could) be distribution neutral. Though, both curation rewards and vesting rewards in the new system would probably have to be less superlinear than curation rewards are now.
Because the extra concentration caused by superlinear vesting rewards to idle accounts like ben and dan (up until a couple weeks ago) would have to be counterbalanced.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So true.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a good idea. So when their share is temporarily deprived it would go to all other accounts that havn't upvoted instead? I think you are onto something there smooth. Assuming there is still curation rewards the penalty would have to be greater than what people earn by upvoting with curation rewards?
I believe that curation rewards should go though, the idea you propose would be much more efficient if curation rewards didn't exist, they are very bad for steem and serve no purpose beside creating bad incentives. Curation rewards should just be distributed as inflation to SP holders.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes exactly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice insight smooth, if I understand correctly, Please tell me if I am thinking of this correct:
Since minnows making 15% on $10 don't care, whales are going to not vote just to collect 15% annually on their asset that they can afford to sit on because they are well enough off? I totally get this. If you were already a world traveler, then why would you want to take time away from your lifestyle to get paid an extra 5% to whatever the high end of this range is (what is it?).
Would you give this this up for another 5% annually on your already fat stack:
oops, sorry, smooth, maybe I should put
just to be politically correct.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes that is basically the idea. Encourage whales to opt out of voting by providing passive income as an alternative (exact mechanism TBD, and that is often the hard part)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Oh, so that has NOT happened yet? Sorry, confused..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No it isn't. This post and my reply to it were ideas how to improve the situation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How about if we just got the whales together and had them create multiple steemit markets using alternate cryptos but all under the platform of steemit..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit