|
I'm not saying to spread them evenly, but if you cap the high rewards, suddenly there's much more rewards that can go to the lower strata.
A 10.000$ post could be paying 100 authors x 100$ or 1000 authors x10$. So....
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking about the capping of rewards on posts, to make more "room" for smaller posts to get something from the reward pool and stop the useless piling of whales. I think it was Dan writing that the first whale gets something like 80% so whales don't have the same incentive to upvote when there's already some heavy upvoting beforehand, yet the piling up continues up to the thousands.
In theory this is fixable by curation (whale downvoting reducing payouts to sane levels), but in practice it is problematic (reputation, less incentives for downvoting compared to upvoting and getting curation rewards etc).
Now caps are a bit communistic, so I was thinking alternatives.
At some point I had an idea which is similar to how the local court system operates in regards to claims for damages. The courts here require a deposit of 0.8% IIRC for any claim. Like if I want a million in damages, I have to pay something like 8000 euro which I lose no matter what. So if you go too greedy you lose some money.
To avoid this, the courts allow the possibility of you asking the court what is an appropriate level that you should be asking for - and then you can adjust accordingly for the lawsuit that you'll be making (but you lose plenty of time in the process) and pay the corresponding 0.8% of that amount... so your chances are increased.
In any case, I was thinking about a similar system where if you go too greedy you lose something and if you are more humble, you gain.
Author writes a post and then self-determines what they are aiming at (max reward) in terms of rewards.
If they are aiming at 10.000+, they get a multiplier of 0.35x on their earnings. So if they really hit 10.000, they get 3.500. But if they hit 100.000, they keep 35.000. It might sound a ripoff but if there were caps involved at, say, 1000 or 5000, then that money would be lost anyway. This is a cap-alternative system - remember.
If they are aiming at 5000-9999, they get a multiplier of 0.5x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 1000-4999, they get a multipler of 0.6x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 500-999, they get a multiplier of 0.75x on their earnings
If they are aiming at 200-499, they get a multiplier of 0.85x on their earnings
If they are aiming up to 199.999, they get a multiplier of 1x on their earnings
The range acts as a self-imposed cap. The incentive to impose it on yourself is an increase on your own multiplier. The lower cap you use, the higher the multiplier you are getting.
So if you declare a post in the 500-999 category, and you get upvotes for 1500$, you are still at 999 max - you don't get to make more because that's your desired maximum. (To hit 999 you'd need 999/0.75 = 1332$ worth of upvotes.)
In a way you have created a mechanism where users try to "self-penalize" themselves the least possible while also aiming to what they consider realistic. This could also be "rebranded" with a positive spin (multipliers bigger than 1 so that instead of appearing negative, it appears positive and users try to "self-reward" themselves for not being greedy) but you get the idea.
Do you think that something like that can work and if no, why?
|
|
|
|
Nobody cares. Let him do that in his own microscopic vacuum. But this doesn't affect one person. Behaviors can be replicated and even become viral. Another major flaw in Steem: Does Steemit want to be the Buzzfeed of the Blockchain world, because without residual payouts, that's exactly what will happen!
The way I see it, the potential for this as a content publishing platform is extremely limited if it's one or two payouts and done.
I agree! There seems to be a resource issue with how the graphene blockchain operates? Bloat, ram issues are cited in the github conversation for eliminating anything post-30-days and focusing on twitter-izing it to clickbait short-lived content. I think this could be fixable by optimizing the software (I've seen some screenshots from a witness I think with ...6.5gb use on a ~2gb blockchain which is absurd - you can't require 3 times the whole size of the blockchain). But what would be really problematic is the scaling of rewards. To keep rewards same: 100x userbase (7mn) needs 100x marketcap (20bn marketcap) and 1000x userbase needs 1000x marketcap. Now if a lot of these rewards go to old content (which I'm in favor of, btw), the problem of paying new content is worsened. A lot. Because then the pool of rewards for new content goes down significantly. Actually, the more content there is in the past, the lower the potential slice for rewards for new content, unless this is managed by an algorithm which says, only 10-30% of payouts go to old content, 70-90% goes to new. |
|
|
|
The effect of this is that low-SP users can't reduce their vote weight from the default, but even minimum-balance accounts can still vote with the default weight. The change was made because some attacker was using cheap accounts with low-weight votes to spam the blockchain. That is now prevented. i guess im a bit confused to how complete new commers will get curator reward now In effect nothing changed for new singups. Their vote is the same. The change only affects "hackers" who were splitting the small vote in parts. |
|
|
|
market will probably just end up being STUCK at 670 for a like a month. You mean 666  |
|
|
|
My guess it is in more in the 2 year time frame for social media success--and not in the rocket ascent of an instagram outlier.
I believe it is unlikely for Steem to make any changes that would create viral adoption. I thus believe it will peak at much less than 1 million users. Yes I think you need a rocket viral ascent.
The Chinese appear to be coming to game Steem's curation reward system: This has never happened before, and Maximum CPC exceeds 800%
Later they will realize they need to collude to take more of the money, as did the Bitcoin Chinese mining cartel. But Bitcoin has a use case. I fear Steem will unravel. I don't think it can sustain at a low level of usership because the forces holding it up are expectations and later these must turn into fighting over money (Tragedy of the Commons). All that changes perhaps if Steem has a widespread use case. But I don't see it. I wonder what it is with Asians. They always like to cheat when it comes to money. They did the same with Stellar when they had a facebook giveaway. It is also the same in games of chance. All they do is try to cheat. That's the point though: Cryptocurrency systems should not be cheatable. If you have gaming vectors then you must patch them (unless it involves social engineering / gaming the human psychology). In that sense, anyone showing you an exploitable attack vector is doing a service. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin diff just hit record-high... in other words, miners are like the honey-badger... they don't give a shit:
Aug 15 2016 217,375,482,757 7.67% 1,556,034,316 GH/s
Aug 02 2016 201,893,210,853 -5.43% 1,445,207,896 GH/s
Jul 18 2016 213,492,501,108 0.04% 1,528,238,850 GH/s
Jul 04 2016 213,398,925,331 1.88% 1,527,569,009 GH/s
Jun 21 2016 209,453,158,595 6.83% 1,499,324,110 GH/s
Jun 08 2016 196,061,423,940 -1.63% 1,403,462,340 GH/s
...projection for next:
Bitcoin Difficulty: 217,375,482,757
Estimated Next Difficulty: 230,902,696,219 (+6.22%)
Adjust time: After 2014 Blocks, About 14.2 days
Hashrate(?): 1,655,918,420 GH/s
|
|
|
|
One more followup: Now I've had a look at Medium, I have a totally negative opinion of it and won't be going back....
Self righteous PC numpties having a martyr self support meeting.
Interesting. Thanks again for the feedback. I've read a few important technical blogs on Medium over the past year. So I don't see it as only a politically correct haven. But what is most revealing to me about your reply, is that exactly as I expected, the Steemians are trying to force their world view onto the world. Sorry that won't scale. I think Steemit has a potential to change the internet and thereby change the world, because of the way it is set up. Steemit has only been online since March. And if I can earn some money doing it that would be great too.
I believe that if we want to change the world, we have to engage with the world. Snobbery and a circlejerk groupthink won't get us there. Unless you are really good at exploiting the Steememes, $10 per day for an exhausting amount of daily blogging won't change your life (nor the world's). P.S. I wish you good luck and I actually support similars ideals as you want. But I want to be clever about attaining them. And yeah I am trying to get off the forum, but I want to make sure my logic is not incorrect. Because I expended a couple of months of intense work to code a dating site last Spring 2015 and it wasn't well thought out in terms of monetization and thus I wasted all that effort. So I want to make sure that before I go into the coding cave, that I'm not wasting my intense effort. Start from where you failed last time: Where is the money going to come from? |
|
|
|
245 people come here daily but 25 million are into STEEM ?
Hmm WOW who knew ?
25mn is the figure for medium, not steem. |
|
|
|
|
Make sure to withdraw all your coins to your wallets - if you have them on exchanges. We don't need another mintpal or cryptsy fiasco in the future.
If you don't have the coins in your wallet, you don't actually have them.
Let the lending rates be whatever they want. It's not worth it.
|
|
|
|
LOL I'm gonna laugh so hard when the price gradually goes down after halving.
People think it's just gonna shoot up on halving day lmao
lol! After halving it actually went from 635 to 670 levels, so... |
|
|
|
I have a question. Why is it that when a coin goes from no value to over $100,000,000 valuation in market cap everyone will say that it is a scam? Is this envy?
There's a rule: Everything cryptocurrency related has at one time or another been called a scam. |
|
|
|
|
Why would he take 200$ for 1500SP? I don't think he'll take the offer.
|
|
|
|
I mean, let's say I know you are going to vote anonymint with 80% chance, then my risk is too low. He'll get my upvote quickly to front-run "smooth the whale". Now repeat this with every other whale and their favorite authors, or even comment authors, and you are suddenly milking the curation through automation via a robotic circle-jerk. Humans are pretty "low entropy" in their behavior and it's not gonna get better anytime soon.
Having said that, we are far from being in a totally broken system.
This is why I vote people like heiditravels 30mins to an hr after she blogs, there's never a shortage of whales on those. It's amazing how many people do the same. I agree with iamnotback that it's hard to form a community when whale votes are the only ones that really count. Every other vote is almost negligible Yes but it's just starting to get traction. One month ago he got 0 vests. Now he has 10m vests. In 6 months he might be at 100mn vests. It's a process of whale-building as coins are also given to the bottom. That's exactly the intent. It's individually milking, yes, but the auction means these rewards are transferred to the author. Once there is less curation decision to be made (because the answer is 70-90% predetermined) then there is little curation reward.
Dan's posts pay about 5% of the normal curation reward. Anonymint's posts pay more, but still less than the full reward that votes on a complete unknown would get. Seems about right to me.
I'm seeing Dan having second thoughts on curation rewards though... |
|
|
|
I don't think people can invest in Steemit as a community, because they can't develop their own community. Getting a lot of followers doesn't really mean you will earn a lot. If the whales don't vote you, you don't earn much. The ones that are voting me very heavily in the first 30 minutes (up 80 - 100 votes) is because they expect a whale to upvote my posts. I will stop blog posting for a while, because I don't want to feel I am abusing the BROKEN system.
I don't see anything broken there. That is the whole intent of the 30 minute reverse auction. Voters have to compete by voting earlier and earlier, and by doing so the rewards are shifted to the author. Thus authors who are gaining votes based on track record and reputation are rewarded for it. If someone votes early expecting there to be later votes, and then there aren't (assume because later more careful voters look at the post and decide it is crap), that vote is wasted. To the extent there is a luck component based on what happens to be seen and what isn't, that will cancel out. Smarter voters will do better. (The luck component -- and didadvantage to people in certain time zones -- will be reduced when the first voting period is put back to 24 hours from 12 hours; that was a bad change IMO.) At the human voter level this is pretty much it. But once you map whale behavior statistics in relation to authors getting upvotes and have values and correlations like 70-80-90%, then you can automate the upvoting process and start milking the cow. I mean, let's say I know you are going to vote anonymint with 80% chance, then my risk is too low. He'll get my upvote quickly to front-run "smooth the whale". Now repeat this with every other whale and their favorite authors, or even comment authors, and you are suddenly milking the curation through automation via a robotic circle-jerk. Humans are pretty "low entropy" in their behavior and it's not gonna get better anytime soon. Having said that, we are far from being in a totally broken system. You do read a lot of threads and comments and spend a lot of time writing comments. A few clicks for upvotes in things that you find nice (in content that you are already engaged in) won't hurt your time schedule.
Btw I do. But I don't have time to keep track of when I am not doing it enough. It's ok, don't worry about it. |
|
|
|
|
If you want to measure the "buzz" effect of a post, that will be a game-theory clusterfuck.
|
|
|
|
I saw the word anarchy used about 400 times in this thread. Am I the only person that thinks "anarchism" is a meaningless word that people just use to try and look cool?
I guess it depends on the country. In some countries "anarchists" are perceived to be black-hoodie vandals, not philosophers of liberty... The black blok types love to argue endlessly with us AnCaps about who are the "real" anarchists. I always ask them, and never get a good answer: 1. how they plan to redistribute the wealth without some type of government violence. 2. why they care so much about their ownership of the intellectual property of the word "anarchist" when they don't believe in property. lol. Though from hanging out in Europe with black blok types, I will say this: Many of them are more willing to get pepper sprayed by cops for their beliefs than many American AnComs. In Greece where I am, there's too much black blok infiltration by the police. They are used to break up any peaceful protest. The pattern is like this: 1) People gather peacefully to protest. 2) The establishment picks up the phone and tells them "hey you must break the peaceful protest" 3) They come and start vandalizing buildings / attacking the riot police 4) Riot police throws tear gas in millions of peaceful protesters 5) The protest is effectively destroyed 6) Some "clashes" ensue between "anarchists" and riot police, which aren't very real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8S6XYixMAkThey pretend to fight, when the "anarchists" are to be attacked, the guy is like "hey hey, stop man, we are undercover... see?" - removes hoodie. LOL. Fuck this shit... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
