Believe it or not, you can collect evidence for propositons by running tests.

in steem •  6 years ago  (edited)

Yeah, sorry, this is about 50/50 curation again. But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that we want to have something besides obtuse economic arguments to base our decision-making for the whole platform on. How would we go about that?

Well, one way to do it would be to set up a small percentage of the platform's posts with higher curation percentages than everyone else's, and make sure everyone knows about it. Then we can watch whether people's voting behavior changes based on the curation percentage on that post. To make it really convenient, we could make that exclusive to one front end which signals its posts clearly, so it would be really easy for users to tell a high-curation post from a low-curation post.

If high curation really drives more voting, we should see votes gradually moving away from the rest of the platform to votes from the high-curation front end. We should see people moving their SP out of other passive investments and into bots that only voted on those high-curation posts. That's the promise 50/50 supporters are bringing us - increase curation and more people will vote.

Except we already tried this. From May 8 until September 26, @dtube offered approximately 40% effective curation on all DTube posts through taking a 25% beneficiary reward and redistributing those funds to voters with an automated system. They didn't steal significant amounts of votes from other media. They didn't cause a significant number of users to abandon bidbots. More or less nothing happened, because people's external motivations actually matter more than the curation reward number. They eventually gave up.

Now maybe 40% wasn't the magic number, although there have been no arguments for 50% being the magic number other than halfsies is appealing to the human brain. And maybe DTube didn't promote it enough. I know it was not as well-known as it could have been.

But hey, what was done once can be done again. If the supporters of 50/50 want to provide 50% curation rewards on their posts, they can do exactly what DTube did by redistributing some of their author rewards, or adding a beneficiary to do it for them. They certainly have enough eyeballs on the platform to advertise it far and wide. They can play with the number if they want to. If they're right, if they take it high enough their posts will take the votes away from everyone else and others will be forced to follow.

If they think 50% curation rewards on their posts will generate more voting, they have the power to make that happen without a code change. I'll even write the bot for them. Then we can have real evidence of the resulting behavior.

Steem.png

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

You're so full of your own opinion, @tcpolymath.

Fact is: when @dtube gave back curation rewards, I had a much bigger incentive to upvote posts on dtube.

I even told @mahdiyari that I'd like to have an option on steemauto to give a bigger voting percentage on posts published on dtube.

And I wasn't even aware that @dtube removed this option. That's actually quite sad. But reading through the post it's obvious why they did it:

People didn't understand it. They thought dtube would take 25% rewards, but forgot that curation rewards were given back.

Changing it from 25% to 10% is the more beginner friendly way I guess.

And actually, the same beginner error is happening again. People think that they'd lose 33% of their author rewards, without adding the fact that voters will be more likely to vote.

At the time when dtube gave back curation rewards, if you would have made dtube videos instead of blog-posts, you'd have gotten bigger upvotes from me. Fact.

I understood it, but I am not a fan of video. Reading is so much faster then watching someone stumble over their words left and right and drink their coffee trying to appear relaxed...or worse trying to act all excited and talking in extremely annoying ways. You could have offered me 90% curation and I still wouldn't care about voting on video.

You could also just look at how distribution is happening on smoke.io, a Steem clone set at 50/50.

yeah I have to say so far I have been pleasantly surprised at what a big difference 50% curation (combined with no delegation and consequently no bid bots) makes on smoke. It gives the platform an entirely different feel - I have been on the front trending page with about half of my posts, based solely on it being quality marijuana content. I didn't even try to capitalize on whatever steem rep/followers I have built up, I am not using same name over there (smoke.io/@thunderfuck for reference). Never in a million years will I be on the front trending page of Steem based solely on publishing quality content, nor will anyone else, ever, unless something big changes. But I don't know that you can tease out the effects of 50% curation from the (probably bigger) effect of having no bid bots, so I am not sure how much we can apply to steem from smoke.

Bid bots are a different factor but to see the distribution potential of 50/50 smoke is a possible case study.

I don't really think you can untangle the two things. Yes, you currently see larger stake holders voting on content over at smoke.io, much moreso than here on Steem. But if there was the opportunity for greater ROI through delegation to bid bots on smoke, would we still see the large stakeholders voting? Maybe, maybe not.

I honestly don't expect it would change much here on Steem to go 50/50 split. Even with 50% curation, curating other authors content is still not the optimal play as far as maximizing ROI when compared with self voting or delegating to bidbots. We already know that the majority of large stakeholders will act to maximize their own ROI, so 50/50 curation wouldn't change much. It would just make it so that the stakeholders who act altruistically for the good of the blockchain at the cost of their own short term ROI are not sacrificing quite as much by voting other people's content.

Thanks for the info, didnt know it exists.

Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 24 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.

I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 6 SBD worth and should receive 117 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.

I am TrufflePig, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!

Have a nice day and sincerely yours,
trufflepig
TrufflePig

Hm. If we moved all curation payouts to being done through beneficiaries and off-chain calculation, it would allow us to run the personally-selected curation percentage proposal while reducing blockchain ops.

But it can not be less than 25%.

Hi @tcpolymath!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.647 which ranks you at #1592 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 23 places in the last three days (old rank 1569).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 278 contributions, your post is ranked at #6.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Some people are already following you, keep going!
  • The readers like your work!
  • Great user engagement! You rock!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server