You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Guardian of the steem universe : A different perspective on the role of whales within steem ecosystem [ part 2]
either that or just hardfork it.
that said, i agree there are a lot of sybil issues that the OP doesnt address.
Whales don't downvote shitty content because they'd rather save their power to upvote but in a system where they can only downvote they would do it a lot more.
Can you elaborate on this please?
I don't know how the math would work, but I suspect a whale splitting their SP into hundreds of 8k accounts could probably earn more by upvoting sock puppet accounts than from the interest they would get by being a mod.
The counter to that is that hopefully the other mods would be able to catch that and do their jobs as moderators.
Great! Hopefully we can get the whole community behind the idea :)
Yes that's the idea. Moderators would downvote content that's overpaid. It doesn't really matter if it was upvoted by many sockpuppets, if the content is shitty payout will go down.
We would have a system were post would go through a lot more scrutiny, which will increase the quality of content selection.
Another incentive for whales to not split their account is that by letting other users vote they will increase the demand for steem and so the value of their account.
And the "evil whales" running the split accounts would astroturf the downvoted content, and say look at poor XXX hes getting downvoted by the big bad moderator. Dan is such a troll. Then dozens of fake voters would say "oh noes! we're being oppressed" And the moderators would back off.
If TPTB had the spine to downvote overvalued content, the system would work fine as is.
The whales (most of them) might agree to this increased scrutiny in principle, but they won't put it into practice.
If the whales were willing to downvote shitty, overpaid content they would be doing so now.
Count me in on team @snowflake for this one! I don't have a lot of influence, but I'll push for it as much as I can :)
I hope you don't mind, but I wrote a modified / TLDR version:
@snowflake's really interesting proposal - Turn whales into moderators and give dolphins all the voting power (TLDR Version)
foundation
This has not been enough of an incentive for many of them to curate responsibly in the past, and there is no reason to believe it will in the future.
If my account was worth $80,000 and the limit for curation was $8,000, then I could theoretically just divide my balance across 10 accounts (each being $8000) and still have the same impact (relatively) as one account worth $80k.
That's how sybil would play out here. You can get around the new set of rules simply by creating more accounts.
One thing that I missed on my first pass through was that there would be no more curation rewards. Users with a lot of SP could split into multiple accounts and gain additional influence, but there would be no financial benefit to doing that other than the ability to vote on your own (and friends) posts.
I totally missed that too!
Here is my reply to @timcliff
Yes you could split your accounts but there won't be any financial incentives to do it. Overtime accounts that have chosen to split will lose power over accounts that didn't.
I don't think they'd necessarily lose power over accounts that didn't.
Given two situations:
It's very likely that you could create a voting algorithm that would outperform the proportional percentage of inflation. So in fact, a smart dev could probably earn more by dividing up their stake into smaller accounts and continue to play the curation game just like they do today.
I'm happy to be wrong here, but until math proves it, I've got to believe that the system that's based on performance (as opposed to flat percentage) will be more profitable.
To be completely honest, the only solution I see to the problem you present is to completely remove curation rewards. Whales would stop voting on content to just earn rewards, and would leave room for the actual members of the community to vote on what they find interesting/valuable.
unless they got kickbacks from the posts they rewarded. thats the thing, youd be giving the 80K guy (not to mention the 800K guy) a huge amount of influence if he elected to split his account into smaller accounts. he be able to assign a massive amount of the reward pool with noone to gainsay him.
Man, did you read my post? :-)
Hahaha, apparently not good enough! It was uh... before I had my coffee :)
jesta's comment covered my idea on how a sybil attack would go.
An absolutely transparent sybil attack might be downvoted by the moderators, but i seriously doubt one with even the flimsiest pretext of being a legitimate post would be.
Moderators would downvote overpaid content, this user would be wasting his power if he was upvoting shitty content. He'd better off rewarding real content that's not going to be downvoted.
Allocating a good portion of the reward pool to yourself is something whales could do today so why don't they? There is multiple reasons for that but the primary one is that they are going to be downvoted if they do. So it really is no different to how the system works now.