1 Account = 1 Vote
Oracles
SMTs
All of these changes are proposed future changes to Steem but they aren't part of Hardfork 20. And the 1 account/1 vote thing and the Oracle thing are almost completely vaporware at this point. SMTs are still quite a ways away, and those two things may or may not be a part of them. If they are it will push the development time out even farther.
@steemitblog has a summary of what's coming in HF20.
I'm glad you like my proposal, and the idea of tying the participation rewards to a 1 account = 1 vote scheme is intriguing. I'm going to have to think about that when I'm more awake.
I think in general we don't have enough systems in place to make sure quality new users are supported and rewarded, and thus if we start bringing in lots of new users we're just going to end up with lots of former users. This isn't helped by Steem Inc.'s unwillingness to use any of their power on curation/retention initiatives. We can have all the dApps in the world but if people aren't connecting it won't matter.
Hey @tcpolymath,
Thanks for the comment!
I've changed the post, removing comments regarding HF20 for now. The last thing I want to do is to spread false news and I had the understanding of more things coming in HF20 than in the latest news post.
But I'm not on par with that statement. SMTs and Oracles go hand in hand; and in the video - @ned and @theoretical sounded pretty serious about the math and logic behind account voting.
Having a voting-system for content-rating based on stake will not work - see the Furious Pete example in the post. And regardless how long it takes - if STEEM wants to attract millions of active users - it has to come.
Your proposal goes into the completely right direction!
Appreciate your comment!
Ned really likes conceptual work. Which is great, I do too! But you can't really take them as signs that that thing is coming the way he talks about it. That's not necessarily inappropriate in this case, as SMTs are Hardfork 22 at the earliest, and that's probably next summer. (#21 is Hivemind.)
Anyway, thinking more about how this fits with my proposal, maybe I'm extrapolating what you're saying too much here, and please say so. But it sounds like what you would like is to keep the PoS function of Steem running but remove the content voting system from Steem entirely and migrate it to a new SMT.
I think that's interesting but it seems like it's essentially how EOS and ONO work and they're already there, or nearly so. Maybe that will turn out to be a better idea but I'm not sure getting into it a year+ behind is worthwhile.
I'm not convinced that stake-weighted voting fundamentally doesn't work, either. I think it's very appealing to have a vote that gains value based on how much effort you've invested here and how much you've contributed. That may be weighted farther toward external financial power than it would ideally be, and certainly the distribution of power is currently a mess, but I don't think those are insoluble problems.
My vision of Steem five years from now is one where there's a large population of established users with $1-$10 votes who can collectively guide the growth of the content and the community.
Something is 3 Steem HFs away from us? Too bad, people don't live that long.
I should have mentioned that estimating how long things take not my strong side is.
But it would still be interesting to get some feedback from Steemit Inc regarding your date estimation. @andrarchy?
Don't worry, what you're saying is valid.
What I would like to see and what is possible are two different shoes. But the first step is always writing down the optimal situation. And that's, what my goal was with this post.
Stake-weighted voting has value, but I'd rather see it in closed communities - for example if a company were to have a community / SMT with own rewards pool. In that case, the CEO should have a bigger voice than an intern.
With all respect, 5 years is a long time and we should ideally reach that goal in 1-2 years. But again, my time estimation isn't the best ;)
If Steem Inc. wanted to do it we could have that in months. Even without busting out the ninja-mined stake, if they wanted to give @themesopotamians one of those million-SP delegations I could make 3000 dolphins a year.
Without their support it's going to take longer. I'm conservative on the five year estimate because it's just taking into account the projects that are active and communicative right now. Hopefully we will also be growing.
Maybe @kpine has a different estimate, it seems like he might be doing similar things to what I am with much more power and much less talking about it. I haven't included him because I don't really know.
We would be just under two years into that growth if stinc, et al, hadnt given us this crap by hardforking out the n2 and the whale xperiment.
So what if the investors dumped, the coin was at a dime anyway.
So what if they dump now, they are killing the network effect with their greed.
~980k people have said we are a failure, and left.
Cheap steem would bring in more $100 investors.
1m $100 investors does more for steem than 100 $1m investors, if we want to be a currency.
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.
@dan made those the rules because they had already been down this road and knew it wouldnt work.
Or we can wait for some more pie in the sky while rewards go to folks that havent earned them each and every day.
The no whale experiment was run my Smooth, nothing stops you from running that same experiment, apart from a few million SP.
Yes, i was here. I saw my vote go from rounding down to .06sbd.
I saw how excited that made everybody.
Too bad stinc, et al, hurried up and forked to stop it.
Ran @dan off, too. Vote selling was the plan and he was against that.
Smdh.
We might have become worthwhile for the newbs to stick around.
Well, that and it makes less sense under linear rewards.
If we are trying to become adopted as a currency the network effect of giving coins to an abusive few makes less sense than exciting a feeding frenzy by making the math attractive to $100 investors.
As it is now 1m users have said we are a game not worth playing, but the same exclusive group is happy accumulating more making the disparity even worse.
Instead of acting in a manner conducive to diminishing the negative aspects of the disparity we have increased it.
I guess that is how stinc, et al, wants to be known.
Not interested in broader adoption.
Seems to be working for them so far, at least they have done nothing to fix their mistakes.
I don't have time to fight your nonlinear rewards scam all over the platform but please don't direct it at me.
Says the guy that never experienced them.
There is a reason that stinc enabled the whales to keep abusing the pool.
Its too bad that you are a beneficiary of that abuse, or maybe you would see things differently.
If proof of stake is a good plan, how is nonlinear rewards anything different?
The problem was in the imbalance that the whale experiment solved.
But you wouldnt know that, and apparantly sticking your fingers in your ears is your solution.
Ok, by me.
Honestly, i think there is a deeper problem, that is the definition of Steemit itself.
We all talk about quality content, but in the end, there is no long term incentive for good quality content creators stick around Steemit. There is better fields out there to publish your work.
I talked a bit more here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
But you are wrong when you talk about Furious Pete and that he gained more value on YouTube. 200k viewers on YouTube is around $100-200. So you think it's more value than it really is. Comments and likes on YouTube is also mainly garbage. Lazy passive people. Steemit is not YouTube and will never be. The audience and community growth will build up in a new organic way here.
200k viewers are 400k eyeballs - most content creators aren't doing it alone for the monetary gain, but for people to see. And if there are no viewers, motivation ain't there neither.
Yeah well you are right. It is more eyeballs.
And Steemit should probably work on getting more eyeballs but I think it will happen more organically by just making a better product to understand.
I think majority of people do it more for the monetary gain. Having thousands of eyeballs can be more annoying for a content creators on YouTube. I have a YouTube channel with over 1 million follows and majority of people would prefer a smaller group of let's say 150 people to give massive value to. Since you then are valued more like a human and not an object.
It's more resource effective of getting the same value on Steemit in monetary gain from 100 people compared to thousands of people on YouTube clicking and watching a video.
Yes many content creators also enjoy getting viewers and they for sure don't like the current version of YouTube. It was nicer around 2007 to be a content creator there. Mainly because the leadership on YouTube is a disaster and that you can't build real trust and relationships on YouTube. Something that you can do on Steemit.
But how do you bring more eye balls if you don´t have quality content to attract more people to the platform?
I talked a bit more here:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@phgnomo/why-steemit-is-not-attractive-to-quality-content-producers
I've got plenty of VP I'd use if there was good content to support and I could find it without spending hours sifting through a dumpster.
Too much time spent with very little reward. Doesn't make it very enticing, does it?
I can attest to this as well from a new users perspective. I have a rough time finding quality content creators to follow so I can only imagine how annoying it probably is for someone trying to use their VP to curate for the good of the platform.
Hey @berniesanders feel free to checkout my blog and provide feedback. I have thick skin so don't worry about hurting anyones feelings.
That's exactly it... it makes no sense that whales have to spend hours upon hours sorting through crap content to find the miniscule percentage that is actually good.
Granted, we have some great content creators, some awesome ones if I may say so, but what is the percentage that is any good... 5% 6% - Possibly I'm being generous there.
On the other hand, if anyone hits the new tag on the home page you will see a ratling gun of meaningless copy pasta, and poorly written pieces.
So, it's hard to convince a big investor (i've tried) hey... put a million into Steem, sort thru the garbage, you will find good stuff and make money. I'm good at sales, but I'm not a wizard.
That's why this makes so much sense to me. Investors can have their R-Shares, content creators can darwinian themselves to the top.
The best ones should thrive.
That's why they should let me do the finding good stuff part for them. I'm good at it, and I like it.
Of course Poly... Being a good curator is something you must enjoy.
Exactly. But I don't enjoy curation enough - does that mean I'm not able to profit from the investment I made with Steem?
Should I sell my Steem and invest in another PoS coin with dividends, that doesn't shame people for wanting to take profits from their investments?
Because self-voting and selling votes is bad, right?
PS: Not completely serious - just asking provocative questions.
As the hybrid word that does not exist yet would say: Presactly! (precisely and exactly) - But, we need to get over the emotional bumps on the road that don't allow us to have a mature conversation about this.
Whatever path we take, it must be a win for everyone, or its pointless.
This is very much the problem - it's a lot of work to find content you value here and every dApp we add makes it harder. We need one or more effective mechanisms that present audience members with content that they will enjoy. The original idea behind Steem was that the curation system would do that, and at the top levels there seems to be a lot of denial of the fact that it is an abject failure.
Fixing it in some fashion, whether it's algorithmic or manual or some combination, ought to be a priority. Probably the first priority.
Youtube has A LOT more garbage content than steemit. How they solved the problem? By personalized content filtering system.
Bernie, you're in a very unique position as a whale in this platform that actually cares about it and with big enough balls to let public hear your thoughts. I think you could do lot more here, if I remember correctly, you created the first vote selling bot and even though I don't like the effect they've had on the platform, it still says lot about your creativity.
What do I mean, well for example, regarding this problem you could list your needs as a whale for what it would require to make your curation process easier. Perhaps totally new website just with content that is selected by community selected curators that can be voted out? I don't know, but I'm sure there's plenty of devs who would like to hear what whales need and want to see developed.
Isn't that the point of Curie and OCD?
Low-staked users manual search for "good" contents and submit.
Reviewers select.
Curie votes.
High-staked accounts AKA investors following the trail do likewise automatically.
Except the elephant in the room is this miserly 25% curation reward.
Then, why not increase the percentage?
src
Most of these issues didnt exist before linear rewards.
Bring back the n2 and the whale experiment.