To me this makes a lot of sense... I discussed at length with polymath this subject when he wrote his post.
You basically have the stake holders getting their ROI, but not skewing the trending page and thus creating a better system of incentives for quality content.
I fail to see the issues with this... I'm serious.
I'll be ballsy and tag @transisto here to ask him.
Hey @transisto, how would you feel about making your ROI and never having to post anything? Would that not be easier?
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.
None of this was an issue before that hardfork.
Wasnt here?
Ask around.
you know.... maybe n2 for everyone who does not go into POS mode... hrmmm, that would be interesting...
I'm going to sleep on this idea some more.
The whale experiment leveled the field some.
A cap of 800mv was enough to make my vote go from nothing to .06sbd.
I didnt get enough time to get a feel for the math, stinc hurried up and hardforked.
If we want to grow the platform by rewarding 'good' content, stinc, et al, has failed miserably at that.
Better to bring back the whale experiment and let the community decide.
We can always raise the cap as we grow the bottom enough to not capsize the boat.
Flags for the abusers.
But dont mention that to poly, he has his fingers in his ears, and doesnt want to hear it.
i think there is a problem a bit deeper when we talk about ´good content´.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
Please, feel free to add your opinion there...
Done.
Exactly @meno.
We have two opposing sides on Steem.
Those who want to earn with their stake in Steem and those, who are primarily interested in creating content and building communities.
Now, both groups are extremely important, but I'm sure that the life on Steem would be a lot more relaxed if investing were to be separated from content creation.
I agree with your analysis of management and the social media. However, I have a problem with 1 account = 1 vote: there are hundreds of thousands of accounts that are bots. So, how to differentiate a person from a bot? Should we apply the KYC rule? And how could Steemit comply with the GDPR law? I can not see a solution with Steemit's governance system. The code is the law but the code is made by humans where the consensus is difficult!
The proposal for authentication is stacked. But, in the case of the proposed SMT, the one on the video, there would be to sets of oracles filtering the users.
One set would be implementing 1 account 1 vote - this could be approached in a similar fashion that people to introduceyourself posts at the moment. However, who is to say that the account faucet could not also have IP restrictions and what not. Granted this part could be tricked, an Oracle could miss that one account created three more. But this is when the second account kicks in.
The second set of oracles determine if the user is acting ethically. If the user is spam farming, triggering upvotes thru automated curation trails, etc. The oracles could shutdown all those account's earnings.
So, to be clear. it's not 100% bulletproof but... The amount of work abusers would have to do, might be enough to curve it significantly.
The moment they get discovered, they lose all possibilities of making any income. Unlike today, were if they have stake, it doesn't matter if they abuse, because they got enough stake to live outside the ethical expectations we may have.
An abuser will use a VPN to counter an IP. Is it possible to use the IMEI? A person can have multiple devices but usually a person is single to use these devices. So IP + IMEI could be an account.
However, there is still the GDPR. Several law firms are studying the possibility of litigating large corporations and blockchains. In the case of blockchains, it will be miners and witnesses who will be prosecuted.
From my understanding an SMT would have free range to work this out in the way they see best suited for them.
There is some socio-economic factors to the game as well. Believe it or not, in Steem's white paper it predicts spam and abuse and it says that some of it is necessary to create the network effect.
Now that sounds counter intuitive, at least on the surface. But, when I think about the fact that no society has gotten ridden of negative behaviors, at least not entirely.
I will admit, I'm not aware of the sweet spot, but I'm convinced it does exist. Maybe if we cut down with spam/abuse to a third of what we have today. Maybe, that's optimal...
Trending page is a pure frontend issue. No need to crack the economy when all you have to do is to fix it is changing post sorting algo.
I would love to agree with you, but i think its a bit more complicated than that. Yes, that is a big element of it, no doubt.
But... hear me out for a second.
What about content discovery? What about incentives for content discovery? What about profitable curation for content consumers?
Do we wanna have 20% content creators 80% content consumers. Like... Youtube? Maybe...
I see your point, that is part of it, but the solution is layered. At least if we are attempting to grow at the scale I picture.
On YouTube I like someone content not because I wanna profit on its creator's populariby but because I actually LIKE what he's doing.
That is curation. That is a feedback between creator and his audience.
i hear you, you are being logical brother. I'm not devil advocating to disagree, I'm simply trying to point out that the expectation behind participating of Steem is because people here can make money.
We have to be honest, i love our dapps, but they are young and glitchy. Remove the monetary compensation, and there reasons to participate of them reduce quite considerably.
Maybe not for me, maybe I would say.. but im trying not to judge solely from my point of view.
Exactly!
And now we are talking about remove that monetary SP-based incentive and replace it with bot swarms and that oracles?
Wha... what?
not on steem no, this is for an SMT that Steemit is going to launch. we need the incentive to hold SP. Two different things.
Thing is, not everybody is a good content creator.
And honestly, 20-80 is a pretty good number, if those 20% is actually good quality content...
acho que falar de uns 20% e ate muito... nao tenho os números do youtube mas eu acho que tem que ser menor... o fato e que nos nao podemos ter tudo mundo tentando ser um youtuber aqui, porque ficamos sem ninguém assistindo os videos... isso nao faz sentido.
O que eu estava pensando esses dias é que o problema é um pouco mais profundo... Está na indefinição de que tipo de plataforma o Steemit quer ser.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/porque-o-steemit-nao-e-atrativo-aos-produtores-de-conteudo-de-qualidade
vou dar uma olhada ai.
Reward the number of followers; if an account has many followers, this is because it is publishing quality content.
That would be awesome, but... today we have so many bots, those numbers could be skewed!
i guess my question is- how would the posts have value? how would the earnings change? if 1account=1vote and oracles and communities decide what things are worth -- do the oracles/communities then have to work really hard to "be worth anything" to be able to give a vote?
i see this changing the entire ecosystem of steem and i'm honestly confused as to what it will look like and now what type of behavior will be incentivized. take food, for example... food is a huge category wherever you go on the internet. always a lot of people clamoring for that well photographed yummy food porn! will the "food" community (because of the # of its users) have a lot of "power" (highter vote b/c more votes?) and the lesser (less members) communities have small votes simply because they have less interest. this will incentivize people to get into the communities with more people?
i truly don't see how this can pan out in a healthy way!! haha, because in the end, it does come down to earnings no matter what people will say and earnings incentivize behavior! curious to hear people's thoughts who do have a better grasp on this. @therealwolf @meno @tcpolymath