Automating Steem's Distribution
Just wanna explore this train of thought tonight: what if Steem's distribution is automatic? That is, we do not vote to distribute at all. Instead, the protocol distributes Steem according to an evolving set of rules set forth by the community, through on-going discussions. All payouts are made accordingly to this set of rules that can be inspected on the blockchain, so perhaps it's a setup that's much better for user experience and satisfaction? There's nothing to be butthurt about. Just let the algorithms do their job. But these algorithms are not exactly closed rulesets. They're open to be re-wired by the community through discussion.
Even if the algorithm doesn't seem like it's working in favour of a better Proof-of-Brain algorithm, hey the next best thing is to have fun discussing to improve the rules and make the money part more like an invisible background thing for 99% of users. Anyone who wants to evolve the Steem-distribution rules are free to do so through discussion.
Maybe then, this will really boost Steem's adoption as an everyday social tool. Note that our discussions are really just computer programs that are logically-intertwined with the distribution-ruleset. Think of it as voting through discussions. We don't have to tick boxes and all of that, just chit chat like we usually do, albeit in more formalised ways, maybe. This technological stack isn't in existence yet, but hopefully soon!
Anyway, it'd be interesting to find out what Steem users think about Steem's rules for distribution in all kinds of dimensions: from content to account activity. Speed posters are always going to earn more, unless community guidelines are strengthened and somehow limits such a thing in the automated distribution algorithm. But will that be social?
Sub-communities may operate on different rules, which like Steem, can be discussed as well. But fully-automated distribution ruleset in the protocol level may be too much, although honestly I think it has the shape of a good consumer product. We can "like", but they're not tied to any Steem distribution. The distribution happens automatically, and you can trace the line of logic and mathematics involved in producing the numbers for all post payouts.
Obvious problem with this implementation is as always, creative sybils and spammers that just play the numbers game to leech off the system while adding unnecessary bloat to it. So some decentralised judiciary system may be required to blacklist / whitelist. And what happens to Steem Power? What role will it have? Some kind of modifier? What happens to curation rewards? So many questions. But maybe best to make this an automated curation account with open-ended rules where users can delegate, profit, and improve distribution. However, as highlighted in one of my previous posts, distributive behaviours are currently limited by the lure of self-voting / vote-trading profitability.
Just an idea with many holes - maybe reserve this for some SMT lol.
Download / Purchase here
Follow me @kevinwong
You changed the whole system of steemit..i don't know how your idea will work but steemit/steem need improvement in wealth distribution. The idea of increasing curation percentage form 25 to 50 is really good for this platform. I want to know.. what is views on bid bots ...are they killing the system??
Bid bots are never a good idea to begin with in my opinion, since it's largely content agnostic..
People should just use their flags more and moderate the content.
Agreed, but now even distributing votes are making users lose out about 6-7x compared to accumulating votes (selling, trading, voting self), the flag's not gonna work out well when incentives are so lopsided.
I think this must have been widely and exhaustively discussed, but what if VP is separate between upvotes and downvotes. would that make less of a lopsided incentive to moderate content better?
Cynically thinking this might trigger an all-out flagging FFA but really isnt it largely already what's happening to the upvotes nowadays?
perhaps more meditation on the subject is needed.
Perhaps i may need to come back to re-read, re-think and then re-phrase what i'll say in a later time..
Maybe we can learn from the mainstream social media in that how does their upvote/like economy works.. When karma isnt worth anything, how is it circulated among the redditors and what will their criteria of giving out upvotes and downvotes be. Conversely, when we look at steem, knowing that our votes have a monetary value tied behind it, how have we performed in terms of setting our criteria to upvote/downvote.
there's no money behind the likes, upvotes and claps on other platforms. So why are they worth so much and why do people flock there? I guess we might agree it's mainly due to the network effect, driven by content people find addictive and worth their time and attention.
It's not that these content creators on other platforms arent in it for the money too? they pretty much have the same mindset as most of the non-whales that are here - to create value (ergo make money).
But is there any other value besides money? It's hard to buy a Network Effect but its something that determines whether an internet platform thrives or dies..
Does Steem have a semblance of the Network Effect? is it a priority on the platform and among it's developers and users?
I know this discussion is about the best way to distribute the steem tokens among the users but really it got me into thinking will too much change in the blockchain cause good or harm? is the original White Paper written as a base for experimentation for improvement or a codex to be abide by?
and is changing token distribution addressing the root cause, if there is even a root cause..
please dont take this as me pouring water on your train of thought, in fact inspired me to go on another tangent.
Ultimately, what does the Steem Blockchain aim to do to improve the human experience? what will be it's function when it became a part of the mainstream zeitgest? What can people find on the apps of the steem blockchain that people cant find anywhere else.. and im talking about the selfie-ing, console-gaming, wage-earning, dutiful-voting, barely tech-literate majority of the human race.
To be honest some of this stuff really is beyond me. But i think there needs to be a site-wide understanding of what the Steem Blockchain can and will potentially be and not just the "crypto-atm machine" that so many users are sadly taking advantage of currently.
or maybe im just rambling, and i apologise for that.
whitepaper for steem is simply - a public content blockchain. what it is will be up to the users :)
Ever evolving. Got it.. which is why discussions like these paramount. for the first time ever users get to decide the future of a platform and not faceless stakeholders. Man i love Steem
Discussions and consensus are now still not scalable though. Have a read at this: https://steemit.com/tauchain/@trafalgar/the-power-of-tau-scaling-the-creation-of-knowledge
I think this is something that’ll also greatly help steem when it’s out
I'll give it a read!
Firstly @kevinwong, I would like to thank you for your recent up-vote, it definitely lifts the spirits of the creator when a whale passes by. I've added myself to your following and I think that this idea is really, really good. You make perfect sense with the evolution of a system like this, which can always be modified according to the steering community. In fact, if this would be implemented onto the Steemit platform, more people would accept this as a fair system, and not down to favouritism, etc. Excellent idea and I am watching attentively to see what happens down the road. Great post! Resteemed!
Hey thanks for dropping by. Maybe it doesn't have to be automated (that is, the distribution). It can maintain the way it functions now, but the whole mechanism could be steered through discussion, codified on-the-fly. Right now all discussions / debates are lost in the wind, and we can only depend on devs to code it up for the supporting nodes to run the software. But yeah that tech stack's gonna take some time to come up with. Check out my previous post on it :)
No probs @kevinwong and it might be worth maybe trial running the automated system, just to compare, but I have no idea about the viability of doing something like that, so over to you my tech friend. You're definitely on point with debates and discussions being lost as this whole platform is work in progress and everything is moving along like a fast-train to somewhere. In all honesty I am not on your level of programming and technical understanding, but I understand principally what you mean. So, on that note, I'll educate myself a bit more by seeking out your other posts about this, Thanks @kevinwong and have a great weekend dude.
im all for the no rules atmosphere of steemit, but the culture hasn’t really caught up to the point where we know how to handle this amount of freedom yet. I want to see it work. Will AI work better? That depends on who designs the algorithms and who oversees it. There are many of us who have insight into human behavior but don’t have much of an understanding to inform the algorithms.
This seems like something @danaedwards is interested in.
Oh and I thought of another solution. We have two kind stuff of accounts, KYC style verified and unverified. This will allow us to have some aspects of the site which are 1 person 1 vote, witness should be for sure, and it’d make my curator-being-paid-like-witness idea much more viable. I’d probably stay unverified cause KYC is a pain in the ass and I like being a pineapple most of the time but People could make the choice themselves. Just an idea to chew on.
Let's wait a little bit before SMT will be up and then try different ways of distribution through experimenting with SMT lol.
In a way, it already is.
I'd say most STEEM made here is not from manual curation, but from automated votes. The posts don't matter, they never have. They're a facade. No one even reads what's posted on here. Nothing would change if no one posted and STEEM was distributed daily based on automated votes.
The way you earn STEEM is by being in the right place at the right time which grants you spot on one of those juicy whale autovote lists.
It's already basically what you're suggesting:
There are pretty clearly-defined things what to do and what not do around here.
Say the right things, and you have a shot. Say one wrong thing, and you're dead.
Agreed mostly, except
.. is not the only way things work / only way to look at it. As like with most protocol, users usually have opinions and will discuss it. But discussion and consensus now isn't scaled by any blockchains nor will any changes translate into code evolution without programmers tinkering and getting it executed by supporting nodes. Check out http://www.idni.org/blog/the-new-tau @schattenjaeger
The problem is that steemit is immune till now to external adds.
But internal adds are growing promising the solution for Steemit as a nickel machine, that gives the key to the reward pool without the main vision of steemit.
Quality content is not the key to rewards for some part of the people, as it was in the initial days.
But only the community can fix this with collective consensual ways to stop the commercial vision on Steemit.
We don't want the honeypot of steemit to feed the ones that do not contribute with their pollen.
The Western honeybee is normally robbed by the Italian bee.
Let's stop the Mob of Italian Bees that don't bring honey content.
Hey Kevin, back again ;)
I'm not sure how this would play out; but one thing I feel confident about is some of these big players like @haejin posting ten times a day treating himself to profits equal to about $30,000 per MONTH! at these lower steem/sbd prices!
I think it's bad for the community and makes the entire platform look like a scam, especially when you have thousands of others who can barely get 25 cents a post sincerely trying to make it the way the platform was intended.
If what you suggest here is a cure for this kind of abuse. Then I'm all for it. On another note, I really commend you for always testing the social waters of the platform, always thinking about ways to improve it, always considering ways to make it more fair for everyone. So on that note, keep up the great work my friend and have a great day!
From Tampa Florida USA -Dan, Steemit's "World Travel Pro!"
All these suggestions of late and more is what SMTs will experiment on and each tokenizer, on its own, will try to solve this wealth distribution problem how he or she sees fit.
Steemit will just tag along whoever gets it right.
As for the technology stack to distribute them rewards without them Whales determining what goes where, I'm guessing Tau?
And for the judiciary system to choke off spammers, Behest.io?
In all, it is experiment upon experiment till we get it right.
They should roll out more labs already.
Yup.. plenty of experiments. Unicorn hunting for the next 24 months :)
Awesome!
A nice idea, but I can't see it ever working. There are too many groups with very different requirements & [perceived] statuses for any one algorithm to be voted in by a community - even if it was one user, one vote.
The majority of whales would never voluntarily give up the system which sees them lose their power/wealth.
The spammers want a system they can manipulate to get exposure for their agenda, and ultimately make money from (these could be new users, or established).
The silent majority wouldn't bother voting.
The newest members can barely understand the platform as it is. I'm sure that any algorithm would further complicate an already complicated system, so would further alienate them.
What is obvious is that the method for distribution of wealth on Steem needs looking at - something I believe Steem Inc are doing.
But you can't put something like that in the hands of the community. Whether it's blockchain, or offline, the rich will never vote to give their money to the poor. Those with good intentions would be outvoted by the majority with self-interest at heart - it's just human nature.
Yeah, forget about one algo, perhaps a matter of subcommunities / firms?