.

crokkon (68) in utopian-io • 7 years ago (edited)

.

7 years ago by crokkon (68)

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:

mattclarke (68) · 7 years ago

This is fantastic analysis, @crokkon. I agree with @abh12345; I'd hoped for more of an improvement for curators relative to authors, but that's no reflection on the rigour of your work.
The elephant in the room is the SBD price. Until that's back down around a dollar, we're comparing apples and oranges.

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

Thanks @mattclarke, also for the RS! With the "elephant in the room" I assume you mean that author rewards are payed out 50/50, while curation rewards are SP only? That actually comes on top. The numbers shown here as author and curator rewards are in STEEM as taken from the reward pool, before the split.

miniature-tiger (68) · 7 years ago

I think that this is the key point regarding curation vs vote selling.

Wouldn't it be simplest just to switch curation payouts to the same currency as post payout? i.e. 50/50 SP/SBD in most cases. Then we have apples and apples.

Waiting for the SBD price to change its behaviour may not happen - and there are also benefits of a SBD price above $1 for many people.

mattclarke (68) · 7 years ago

Without comprehending the reasoning behind the SBD pump, it's really hard to know how to approach it.
It's also incredibly difficult explaining the architecture of the place to noobs, when they can't understand why we'd have two currencies which are worth roughly the same.
Simplicity is it's own reward.

vempire (48) · 7 years ago

It will come in handy to say thanks for giving

$0.00

libert (63) · 7 years ago

What's wrong with more than $1 sbd price?

$0.00

mattclarke (68) · 7 years ago

SBD's were designed to be a hedge, pegged to the USD; so if you had some gains on steem and wanted to lock them in, you could buy SBDs instead of having to cash out via an exchange or bank account.
You'd know that even if the price dropped, you'd still own that amount of US dollars worth of steem.
All of the mechanisms the team built to keep the price around a dollar were designed to push it up if its value crept down below a dollar.
Since they're designed to sit at 1 dollar, it didn't occur to anyone that somebody might buy them for $5 (who would do that?) and nobody built in a mechanism to pull the price back down if it went higher.
It's all very strange :)

lucylin (67) · 7 years ago

Pesky free markets meeting planners plans.
They just never do as they are told!
😂

( I know nothing of this, ...just my 2 cents. lol)

mattclarke (68) · 7 years ago

Plan your plans and scheme your schemes.
They're flat ash under the wheel of progress.

$0.00

lucylin (67) · 7 years ago

Yeah, but socialism will work next time..........honest...
😂

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago

The higher the SBD price, the higher the likelihood of self-voting for a 'cash' payout, over curation as an 'invested' payout.

$0.00

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago

Thanks for looking into this one. I had hoped for a better 'result' for the curators following HF20 to be honest.

Chopping the vote times in half (as the reverse auction time is being halved) and factoring in the 'return to pool' of the early self-vote makes total sense, and sooo yeah, not too pleased with the numbers, but still an awesome piece of work on your part.

Cheers!

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago (edited)

Thanks @abh12345, I was hoping for 'better' results as well. The insta-votes or possibly the lack thereof on HF20 may still improve the situation slightly with HF20, but I guess we'll only know when it's active.

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago

Indeed. I trust you'll be crunching the numbers as soon as this is the case :)

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

I'm ready, only Steemit seems to hesitate with a release date :)

eastmael (67) · 7 years ago

Thank you for coming up with this analysis. This is a good benchmark or prediction of the possible results once HF20 is deployed.

Need help? Write a ticket on https://support.utopian.io/.
Chat with us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]

somethingsubtle (56) · 7 years ago

Nice, thorough analysis.

glenalbrethsen (68) · 7 years ago

Okay. First off, thank you for this. You answered the question I had regarding where the auto self-upvoting rewards actually go after HF 20 if they're no longer going to the author. They end up back in the rewards pool, rather than with the curators.

Which seems like a wasted opportunity, since so many people who self-upvote claim to be doing it to sweeten the curator pot when they've actually been sweetening their own author's pot with the self-upvote. It seems like the curator rewards would be significantly impacted if the auto self-upvoting actually folded into the curator rewards.

So, the status quo is more or less maintained. I guess we might as well keep HF 19 (aside from Velocity, maybe).

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

Thank you! To be clear, the author gets 75% of the vote value in both HF19 and HF20. In HF19, the remaining 25% are distributed between the author and the curators depending on the voting time, giving the author a part of that pot on top. In HF20, those 25% go to the curators or stay in the pool depending on the voting time.

Self-voting at post creation time in HF19 gives 100% to the author, while reducing the curation share for every other voter. Even if a self-vote is done after the reverse auction time when 25% of the vote value goes to the curators, there are still 75% of it going to the author. Arguing with "sweetening the curator pot" is questionable even in this case, but that's a topic on it's own ;)

If the reverse auction part of the curation share would remain with the curators, we'd have a fixed 75/25% distribution of the post rewards. This would actually be possible with changing a single line of code. Seems like this is not wanted by those in charge...

glenalbrethsen (68) · 7 years ago

Self-voting at post creation time in HF19 gives 100% to the author, while reducing the curation share for every other voter. Even if a self-vote is done after the reverse auction time when 25% of the vote value goes to the curators, there are still 75% of it going to the author. Arguing with "sweetening the curator pot" is questionable even in this case, but that's a topic on it's own ;)

You were talking about a potential 1-2.5% increase in curator rewards between HF 19 and HF20 depending on when everyone voted. I was thinking that if that 6.6% that might go back to the rewards pool in your example actually ended up with the curators, it would be better to get the 25% distributed among them than just the 18-20%. Sweetening the pot might not be the right phrase, but potentially having the entire 25% to work with rather than only 18-something percent would be better than nothing.

As it is, I'm not sure why a 65-35, or 60-40 split hasn't been proposed, discussed, implemented, what have you. I understand the 50-50 split that was tried went away, not sure why, but guessing author's didn't like sharing so much with the curators. Which is fine. I would hope that the author is putting in more time to create a post than a curator is spending to read the post and then decide whether or not to upvote it. Or for that matter, simply auto voting, so I'm in agreement that the majority of the rewards should go with the author. There's still a range between 75-25 and 50-50 that could be explored, but as you say, that's a whole different topic.

If the reverse auction part of the curation share would remain with the curators, we'd have a fixed 75/25% distribution of the post rewards. This would actually be possible with changing a single line of code. Seems like this is not wanted by those in charge...

So, this begs the question, "Why?"

revisesociology (73) · 7 years ago (edited)

Just skimming yr post following way too much whisky on a Wednesday.

Nothing intelligent to add into the mix ATM, instead I'll just state the obvious and say that it seems that the (potential next) HF will just be an easily avoidable redistributive tweak, albeit in the right direction.

Then again, you never know the effects of small changes.... data analysis can't predict that, as you're well aware of course!

Glad to see your getting rewarded for such great analysis!

utopian-io (71) · 7 years ago

Hey @crokkon

We're already looking forward to your next contribution!

Contributing on Utopian

Learn how to contribute on our website or by watching this tutorial on Youtube.

Utopian Witness!

Vote for Utopian Witness! We are made of developers, system administrators, entrepreneurs, artists, content creators, thinkers. We embrace every nationality, mindset and belief.

Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV

viraldrome (67) · 7 years ago

It should be more profitable to curate than to just upvote your own comments.

minismallholding (69) · 7 years ago

A bit of a tangent here, but just today I've come across a reason why the current dust limit could be a good thing. I'm guessing this is a bot, because I'm pretty sure you can't manually post every 5 minutes, but @adsofficial18 seems to be earning something from it. Most of the posts are only getting the odd cent from @cheetah though.
This also gives a case for limiting daily blog posts. Do you think HF20 would have any effect on discouraging this sort of behaviour?

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

Wow, please report that account to @steemcleaners, that's clearly automated spam: http://steemcleaners.com/reports/new
The dust limit has no influence here. The votes are big enough that they easily exceed the HF19 and the HF20 dust vote limits. What is there already is the bandwidth limit. If you look up that account on steemd now, you'll see that it actually ran out of bandwidth right now and is currently not able to post:

However, as you can see in the authors posting history, it doesn't really prevent that kind of content...

minismallholding (69) · 7 years ago

I reported it. I forgot about bandwidth limit. I'm surprised they managed the amount of posts they did before it ran out!

$0.00

jefpatat (64) · 7 years ago

As always: brilliant work! Unfortunately the result is disappointing for us small fish. This again helps to better understand where we stand and where we might head to. Thanks a lot!

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

Thanks @jefpatat!

$0.00

mys (62) · 7 years ago

Offtopic:

changing a vote overwrites the initial rshare/weight table, making it hard to reconstruct the author/curator share retrospectively

Does changing a vote % set its weight to zero in reality? I see in the rshares table it is zero'ed, eg. at steemd.com. Is it just UI simplification or true?

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

yes, it's really 0.

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago

shhhh :P

ezpz (41) · 7 years ago

MY GAHD!

$0.00

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago

Here come the gentlebot fans!

$0.00

dang07 (39) · 7 years ago

No you :)

$0.00

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago

@gentlebot likes peace and quiet 😂

$0.00

sco (64) · 7 years ago

great analysis, but fucking dammit.

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

well said :)

$0.00

positivesynergy (43) · 7 years ago

Very well done, informative post, @crokkon. Thanks for the info. Is there a projected date of release for the HF20? To be honest, I have doubts about improvements until I actually see them, given I've never seen more than 1% paid for curation.

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

I'm sorry, I'm not aware of a projected release date. There is a lot more than 1% curation rewards in total already now, but as an individual you really have to know the game to earn a share of it also with low SP.

positivesynergy (43) · 7 years ago

Yeah, I pulled my hair out trying to figure it out when I started a few months ago, but never made a cent until I invested in SP. It seems the main way to make anything is to invest thousands or more. Thanks for the info...

$0.00

melbourneswest (55) · 7 years ago

You've raised some good points, however this will also increase bots takings. What are your thoughts on bots on the platform and how will it impact new users?

crokkon (68) · 7 years ago

I don't think Steem without bots will happen in the near future. I could image that curation bots might profit from HF20 and I don't think that it will make a big difference for bid-bots. For new users it probably doesn't make a difference at all if we're at HF19 or HF20 curation.

eadiatu (49) · 7 years ago

Thanks for this detailed post. I hope it will make Steemit better.

$0.00

arcange (73) · 7 years ago

WARNING - The message you received from @wande is a CONFIRMED SCAM!
DO NOT FOLLOW any instruction and DO NOT CLICK on any link in the comment!

For more information, read this post:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@arcange/phishing-site-reported-steemautobot-dot-ml

If you find my work to protect you and the community valuable, please consider to upvote this warning or to vote for my witness.

$0.00

Loading...

magic8ball (47) · 7 years ago

To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:

It is certain

Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.

$0.00

wande (0) · 7 years ago

$0.00