Time to decentralize curation?

in steemit •  8 years ago  (edited)

enter image description here

The problem? Attention scarcity among whales. The solution? Delegated voter pools

How could it work? As a trial, implement the feature allowing:

  1. A whale to select a list of minnows or dolphins to delegate their voting power to.
  2. A randomization, in the form of a randomly generated list of minnows to populate the voting pool.

In my opinion, each person who has more than a certain threshold of Steem Power which we could deem to be more than a human being can reasonably distribute, could be given the option to opt-into the delegated voting pool feature.

Those who opt in, would then create a list similar to a follow list, but in this case it will be a delegated voter list, which would populate a voting pool. This voting pool would then be able to vote on behalf of the whale and the voting pool would be rewarded with 50% of what the whale would get.

In addition to this, the option to let a whale set the delegate list to random. In this case the voter list is randomly selected.

In my opinion, randomization should add this twist, that for two days out of every week, all whale voting power will be distributed to random bloggers on Steemit. These two days out of the week could be any 2 out of 7, and the bloggers could be any with a high enough reputation.

A/B testing

If it is a trial, then we can now treat it as an A/B test. We could analyze the flow of Steem Power to determine if the changes are improving the flow of Steem Power or not. In my opinion, this test might be controversial a little bit, but it's way less controversial than reward caps or any of the examples which would seem to punish bloggers. In fact this would give bloggers a bit of responsibility, and empower bloggers to be curators for a while, since a lot of bloggers seem to want to complain about how whales are doing the curating.

Summary

A lot of bloggers complain about the curation abilities of whales. Whales have a problem of attention scarcity which can only be solved by using bots or by delegating their voting power. If whales have complete control over the list without randomization then it's open to coercion or other risks, but if there is the element of randomization it makes it so no one can predict what will happen for two days of each week, which would provide a nice data example to analyze.

Thoughts everyone?

Reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing

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:  

Hello :)
This is a really interesting perspective. I haven't heard something like this before, I really like it. I feel like it would help out a wide range of people without giving anyone person too much power. It may take a few adjustments but I feel like overall it could work out nicely.

fantastic idea

I followed from your longer reply on craig-grants page and yes I agree.. A/B testing is the norm, standard, etc, for almost all things marketing and experimental, so can't imagine what's the hold up here? Keep pitching on our behalf please Dana!

Great idea. Could easily be implemented by bots.
An experiment would be worth it.

Ultimately, any account should ve able to delegate some votes. It would be a nice evolution.
As @dantheman said: the role of whales is more to curate content than to create content .
Your idea is a nice step forward in that direction.

Thanks for the idea.

Your idea is already being tried by the Robin Hood Project, which has been going for about a week. See

https://steemit.com/robinhoodwhale/@laonie/robinhoodwhale-27-08-2016

It's not your fault you have missed it: the tags on the right hand side of the home page are hardcoded rather than dynamic, so tags like the #robinhoodwhale and #minnowsunite are not listed and are only known about by a few people. But the projects do exist.

I feel like the hype period has gone on for way too long. The Whales were only supposed to pump PRO steemit posts until the money was made that started bringing the hot shots over like berwick and shreem or sheen. They were the white knights of our age claiming "come to steemit and make money doing what you're already doing" and phase 3 stalled at the gate.

Curation needs a bit of fixing and a lottery held for the most popular majority voted idea.. At least then we'll see plain and simple if the best idea for steemit as a whole is the best idea for steemit - or the best idea for those at the top.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

This is quite similar to the idea of adopting the stuff from what slashdot uses. Good stuff! With the opt in & delegation list. A lot like sheriff & deputies.
Randomisation option is like they compare it to the jury duty. I am glad that more people are thinking about the ways to improve the current situation. :-D
Especially since my posts on those topics have a visibility problem so far.

I like the idea but how does the community move a proposal like this forward? In the RAPID model of Steemit governance, who has the D?

I can make a further proposal.
also need to choose a non-English speaking curators.
overwhelming attention paid to English-speaking segment of the network.

The randomization element would mean 2 days per week any random people could be the curators. That means any language speakers could be in the pool because it's a random lottery.

nearly 77K users and only 2 days a week :)
to old age someone will get ability to 2 days to be a whale :)

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

the main problem of this decentralized network - centralized power whales :)
and this is the main anchor of the social network.
see how much will be different other social network that will pay - Synereo.

These ideas were floated before... even by Dan, The Man himself. But they are showing few signs of materializing. Even though they seemed to be well received.

I'd like to see them come to fruition.

This is really the best possible idea to solve the attention scarcity problem. Capping rewards is the worst idea but this idea solves the problem at the root. No blogger would be hurt, there would be minimal controversy, and it's opt-in.

I wouldn't cap rewards, but I would flatten them a lot.

good point, hopefully our posts will get the attentions it deserves..other authors have gone tired and went dark silent :(

Voting on behalf of the whale? I don't like the idea of taking from some and dividing it out to others who didn't earn it. Wouldn't everyone above this certain level choose to opt-in if they're being given extra Steem Power for free? If I'm following you correct...

Whales don't lose anything. Whales have limited human attention. Whales therefore have to rent the human computation from the bloggers by rewarding bloggers to vote on their behalf. Two days out of every week, all whale voting power is randomized, and these are free for all voting days where we can see how the minnows use the curation power of the whales.

What would be the next step if whales are not happy with minnow curation power?

That is why it's a trial. I really made this post to respond to @ned who wanted to try something else which I think is a horrible idea which is capping rewards for bloggers. I agree with ned that there is a problem but I identify the problem as attention scarcity of whales not a problem with bloggers, and the bloggers who consistently produce quality content are not the ones who should be punished because that is what we want from bloggers right?

Exactly. It's an experiment. Steemit should be doing lots of experiments. Who reports on the results?

I do agree that you have a nice perspective on the problem at hand. My own thoughts revolve around making the individual empowered. I would like to see people with high reputation have as much curating power as a whale, if not more. You have promoted the idea of a pool where the participation of others will make a difference, but it will also empower an errant whale to game the system. If each individual were also to have their reputation score enhance their curation power, it should put more pressure on these individuals to curate responsibly to keep their reputation intact. In short, I feel a way to link reputation to curation power should be discussed at least.

I think your suggestions are excellent! And this would motivate me to write more,my post would feel much more like a lottery ticket,with decent chances of wins in the long run. And it would redistribute wealth effectively.
Go go go!

A good suggest.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

good idea.
but need to think through all the good that there is no possibility of fraud.

That sound great, but who would get the curation rewards with the voting power shifted?
I would think if power was passed to others, they would have to be top notch STEEMers, otherwise the #steemitcirclejerk would still continue, just in other smaller fishes hands.
Maybe @dan and @ned could make another $5k post that explains the complexity of the whale power, along with maybe hint at your great idea your brought up here. Anyways I'm all for it!!

The rewards should be split 50/50 between the delegated voter pool and the whale. And no one knows what would happen, and I also added reputation could be used, this way bloggers have a reason to want to obtain and keep a good reputation. I would say, on the randomization days, any bloggers with a decent reputation should have a chance of being selected, almost like jury duty.

So which whale do you think would come into this idea and split awards...
lets make the call @berniesanders

The same whales who are complaining the rewards from blogging aren't being fairly distributed. I hear @ned is looking for ideas like this so I'm offering up an idea as an alternative to what I viewed as a really bad idea they are considering. I also hear @smooth and some other whales also have these sorts of views.

Honestly I don't disagree with them that there might but a problem but I do not want to punish the current top bloggers to help the next gen to get attention. I think the idea I propose would be the most fair way I can think of to resolve the underlying problem but honestly I don't expect my idea to be picked up.

I don't fully understand how it would work, but get the gist, and it seems like a valid possibility. More than anything, I think it's neat that very process- and system-oriented are not just standing there complaining or crying foul, but are presenting possible workable solutions. Also very encouraged to know that @ned, @smooth and others are looking for ideas like this. It's cool to watch the platform evolve.

you want that have one whale gave the right to vote to another whale? :)
I don't see in this decentralization.
or I did not understand right?

that is a fantastic idea a pool reward for top post of the day based on actual votes not vote weight,

Does it mean that it will increase the no. of whales in the community?

I've liked the idea of delegated curation since the idea was first floated. Not sure I agree with forced randomization, though. I think anyone should be free to determine how much of their voting power they want to make available to a pool of curators vs. how much they want to dedicate to curators of their own choosing. Some may actually choose to dedicate more voting power to the pool, especially if the pool has an automated process that generally does a better job selecting a team of effective curators than a human could.

It should be opt in. Whales who opt in should have to deal with all or nothing. So opt in and you get to make your list but your list only applies for 5 days out of a week. Think of it as taking the weekends off and letting the random minnows have control for a couple of days. This is necessary for experimental purposes just so we can see whether it helps, and also to keep the whales from simply choosing all their friends who will simply vote as instructed.

I think it's awesome how the community on Steemit solves it's own problems together instead of strictly relying on the creators/editors of the site. It almost reminds me of the free market versus centralized powers.

Love it. Do it. Could lay the groundwork for the Guild Concept

Hopefully it will pull back on some of the complaining about a lack of fairness.

I think it's just that the site is still brand new. It's still in beta. With enough time, posting , and commenting enough content will eventually get everyone enough steem for the system to work out. Then again i'm still learning lol! Overall I'm sure there will be changes and improvement to the system.

I agree but certain whales see the problem as urgent and honestly, the data seems to support their point of view. Growth is happening but it appears there is not as much engagement as there could be. People want more opportunities to be noticed, to be discovered and rewarded.

A better solution is to just convince whales to not vote. The payouts for the day for the whole network will not change if whales refuse to vote. Which means that if they don't vote minnows have more voting power.

  ·  8 years ago Reveal Comment