— SteemCN

RE: A new approach to Content Reward Allocation

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

A new approach to Content Reward Allocation

View the full context

tuck-fheman (74) in steem • 9 years ago

Can someone put this into words that make sense to me so that I can form an opinion? Being stupid sucks. :/

steem

9 years ago by tuck-fheman (74)

$0.04

5 votes

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:

Trending

[-]

censor-this (54) · 9 years ago (edited)

I'll give it a shot, but I'm not great with words.

Basically instead of a simple up/down vote, it would be rated on a 5 star system (though it looks from 10 star from the math, from -5 to 5) where its easy to go from 0 to 1, harder to get to 2, harder still for 3, and so on. The closer your vote to the "final vote" the more you get paid (based on your voting power)

post topic / comment
people vote -5 to 5. This is blind, no one else can see your vote (my assumption of what "blind" means)
after some time (not specified in the post) votes are revealed by all that choose to do so (if you don't reveal, you don't get paid)
the more STEEM you have, the more weight your vote is given in the -5 to 5 scale. That gets calculated to give a "final vote" number (weighted_average_vote below) .
Author payout is calculated (not really sure how to put this in words) (VotingSteemPower / TotalSteemPower)^2 * budget * weighted_average_vote^10 / 5^10
Each voter's margin of error is calculated - See if your vote is close to what the "final vote" from 4 is. The closer your vote is to the "final vote" the more share of the reward you get
Voters split an amount equal to the maximum author payout weighted by Steem Power * (1-error) <- this is the formula for what I described in 6.

$56.76

7 votes

[-]

tuck-fheman (74) · 9 years ago

Thanks!

if you don't reveal, you don't get paid

Then what's the point of having a blinding option? Everyone wants to get paid in a system that pays, I assume. Is it so that you can give a rating on the content but not give a reward to the content creator?

Each voter's margin of error is calculated - See if your vote is close to what the "final vote" from 4 is. The closer your vote is to the "final vote" the more share of the reward you get

So it sounds like I should vote 5 on dan and ned and the Steem related service accounts, 4 on all of the other top 10 earners and 3 on everyone else that's not spam. Can I get a bot for this? :b

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

censor-this (54) · 9 years ago (edited)

Then what's the point of having a blinding option? Everyone wants to get paid in a system that pays, I assume. Is it so that you can give a rating on the content but not give a reward to the content creator?

Blind isn't an option, its how you vote so other people can't see the vote until the "reveal" of what everyone else voted. Revealing is an option (which you would never not do unless you wanted to vote and not get paid). The blind is there to prevent early bandwagon effect on something that gets popular quick.

Your second point is what I brought up in my first post. I still don't see it to be bot proof of even resistant honestly. Maybe not as simple as you describe, but still easily gamble in my opinion.

Edit: had to edit post instead of respond to question because comment depth is limited.
Clarified the reveal option statement.

$0.00

[-]

tuck-fheman (74) · 9 years ago

if you don't reveal, you don't get paid

Revealing is an option (which you would never take unless you wanted to vote and not get paid).

Ok so the first one should read, "if you do reveal, you don't get paid". Correct?

$0.00

[-]

dana-edwards (74) · 9 years ago

Star system is too complicated. Up or down is better but there should be the addition of context with up or down.

$0.00

[-]

abit (70) · 9 years ago

In one sentence: it's good for whales (or perhaps everyone) to collude in voting with same (perhaps highest) score within a given period.

$0.00

[-]

cryptoctopus (74) · 9 years ago

Same here. Im too dumb for this but it does sound cool.

$0.00

1 vote