RE: Proof of Consent of Participants and the Danger Click-bait F'U Posts.
I was sent here by @steemsports presumably to show me that the take on these games by certain community members is wrong. So now I've spent the past half an hour or so reading posts, and the one that stands out the most is by @beanz. So even putting aside the accidental posting of a member when she was underage and the possibility of people's feelings being hurt, it still appears that the entire setup injures the community far more than it benefits. Is that accurate? Or more to the point, can anyone explain to me where or how @beanz is mistaken? As far as writing quality articles about sports such as @writingamigo is talking about, that would seem to be the correct way to use a steemsport platform and I can't imagine anyone taking issue with that. I certainly don't.
Hi @dreemit we have spent most of the morning on this topic and not sure which post you refer to by @beanz as there are a number of them on her blog, including resteems. But if you ask about value, first have a look at our value proposition on our beta app post:
https://steemit.com/steemsports/@steemsports/join-the-steemsports-beta
Then have a look at the website we are developing https://steemsports.com and the about us page which tells you a bit about our project.
Also try and think rationally, we are not about the moneygrab, in-fact we are less so, every other author keeps his full post rewards, including @stellabelle who has been very vocal against us, she has currently 186 000SP in author rewards vs our 127 000SP and she is one person, this also means that she would have earned the same amount in liquid rewards which she hasn't given back to anyone and kept for herself.
We give away 97% of our liquid rewards to writers, editors and to players, do you know of any other authors who are creating jobs for writers and are giving away any of the rewards? Would you yourself ever consider earning only SP and almost no liquid rewards while everyone else earns both? We don't even feature in the top 200. Also with the exception of @officialfuzzy I don't know who else gives away any meaningful post rewards.
The aforementioned SP is not even enough for two month's worth of runway for a company in the real world. Our PAY PLAY games will change things, it will create a demand for Steem and SBD and the only major service that will create a demand for it at this point.
you are incorrect in one important way: "she is one person, this also means that she would have earned the same amount in liquid rewards which she hasn't given back to anyone and kept for herself." I created the secret writer project that gave 50% of the SBD's to the authors who provided the secrets. I edited and did all the photography selections for these posts. I created this service for months, redistributing liquid rewards to people who did not have a following.
I would add also that my halloween contest gave away 850 Steem, I've given to those who were hacked, and also people who suffered various issues. To say that I have not given away anything is completely false.
Okay, I'd be glad to look through this, I'm not one to jump on bandwagons, but I also have to tell you that this goes back a little further. The first time I heard anything about this was on a post by @generation.easy. In the comments @sigmajin explains the voting system and it unfortunately seems to be a long time consensus of a number of people that what you do hurts the voting pool. However as I said I will look at everything you have before making my own judgment. I don't know @stellabelle incidentally, I haven't seen her posts. Perhaps the Pay Play will resolve some of these issues anyway? Definitely sounds interesting.
[replying to your later reply]
It was somewhat accurate, but there are a lot of details to work through:
Actually it is both. If there were no posts with a lot of votes, and every post got just one minnow vote, then every post would indeed receive a reward, I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 currently (rough estimate). However, this is completely unrealistic. In practice if you downvote some high-paying posts like Steemsports, nearly all of those rewards are just going to flow to the other high-paying posts. There has never been a time in the history of Steemit when there weren't high-paying posts (though they have sure varied over time!) and there almost certainly never will be.
The low-voted posts will always have to compete with some high paying posts gaining most of the reward pool; that is the design of the system.
I don't personally disagree with downvoting high paying posts if you think they are overrewarded (and I have done so, including this one), just recognize that you are giving the rewards mostly to other high-voted posts (possibly at a slightly lower tier of high-voted, if all the highest-voted posts were downvoted), not to the posts with one or two minnow votes.
Even a post with just a single whale vote (say 1 million SP) will earn 100 million times as much as a post with a single minnow vote (say 100 SP). There is just no way that those low voted posts are ever going to earn a significant (if any) reward, regardless of what specifically happens at the top. That part is a myth. The system just isn't designed for people with low SP to be able to vote themselves any reward. It takes many small votes or a smaller number of large votes to do it.
she was actually quoting me, from a reply to a post about using some baseline amount of guaranteed votes for every post to create a universal basic income on steemit.
My point was that, because of quadratic weighting, if you added X steem power in votes to every single post, it would increase payout disparity, because that X steem power would give more vshares (and therefore more money) to high paid posts. That is to say that you would be giving X vshares to every low paying post, but you would be raising the threshold for how many Vshares it takes to get paid by some number greater than X.
Im not saying that there is any good way to distribute out money to every single post on steemit (or even that it is desirable) but if that is what youre trying to do, for a fixed amount of voting power, the most effective strategy is to downvote many high paying posts, rather than upvote many non-paying posts.
Replying here due to nesting
I don't necessarily agree that its irrelevant. For example, in your example, another minnow with 100sp might want to decrease that disparity. His vote would be infinitesimal either way, but it would have 6000 times the effect if he downvoted the 1m post than if he upvoted the 100 post.
idk about UBI, but i do believe that a wide spread acceptance of the downvote as a valid means of redress for overvalued posts is the only way to get there with a feasible amount of steem power.
especially if it was big dolphins or little whales doing it, it could have a big impact.
I actually was origninally going to post a somewhat detailed model of the math here, but it was so long i made it into an OP.
https://steemit.com/til/@sigmajin/til-the-best-strategy-for-reducing-rewards-disparity-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-i
@sigmajin
On the narrow mathematical point that it is strictly speaking more effective at approaching a basic income by some infinitesimal and practically irrelevant amount, I agree. Unfortunately it is easy for people who are not so mathematically inclined to misinterpret statements like this and think they have some practical significance when they really do not.
Okay, that makes sense. I'm not even sure why people are crying unfair, this wasn't designed to be a socialist economy. Everyone keeps talking about quality of content, but that's all a matter of perspective.
It is a compete myth, or possibly a lie (if the person making the claim understands what they are talking about), that it "hurts the voting pool". The voting pool is fixed, and posters (and commenters) compete for votes. It only "hurts" to the extent that people who are posting things that are less compelling to stakeholders get less. (At the moment; as stated elsewhere, this can and does change over time.)
Okay. To be clear the comments of the post I mentioned explained how it was effecting it, the one commenting was not speaking out against steemsports only explaining the way voting works and using it as an example. I don't want to pull someone into this who might not want to be in the middle. Though there were others who seem to have strong opinions about it. Anyway what you're saying is that you for example would choose steemsports/games to vote on simply because it's what you like and not because it will in some way benefit you, correct?
[replying to your later reply]
That's not only a hypothetical, that is usually how it actually works. I don't often enter the contests even though I vote on the posts and I often vote so late that my curation rewards are little to nothing. I'm voting on their posts because I think it adds value and they have invested and are investing a lot in improving Steem and it is good for Steem when people and businesses do that.
Sorry, I'm really just becoming aware of this entire situation other than comments I've heard along the way. I'm not one of the flaggers or down voters, I'm just attempting to understand what this controversy is all about since people I've recently become acquainted with are smack in the middle of it. Haha, I didn't even know you were a curator, four weeks here, I'm still learning :)
[replying to your later reply]
This is a decentralized p2p system. Everyone is a curator. It is weighted by the amount of SP you have. I have a lot so my vote counts more, but everyone counts, even a brand new user with minimum SP.
It may be a bit mind-bending when you first start to think about it, but the nature of the system is very different from something like Facebook where people and algorithms work in secret to decide what gets shown and how. Here everything is determined by the users and everything is public.
I thought that all changed with the hardfork? I was here for about a week before then and I watched my SP go up from curation, and this was when I had much less of everything. Now it only moves when I make something from a post. Also I've seen Curator listed on people's descriptions so I thought there were people specific to the task. Thanks for explaining.
The only thing that would make showing my comment over and over more awesome would be if I wrote LOL instead of haha...I tend to laugh inappropriately when I'm uncomfortable or tired and apparently I type laugh for these reasons as well, sweet! Jeeze. I know I must sound clueless, this type of thing is not my strong suit.
[replying to your later reply]
Nothing about curation changed from the hardfork. The overall rewards (both posting and curation) were cut a bit, but the mechanism is the same as before.
The main thing that changed is that you earn a lot less SP by doing nothing, but since much less STEEM/SP is being created the value should be expected to decline less and/or increase more. Overall it didn't change much related to the social site aspect at all; the changes were more of interest to investors and speculators.
If people put "Curator" on their profile, that is no different that putting "Professional Troll" on there. Anyone can put anything they want on their profile (again, decentralized p2p system; no one is in charge).
Yeah, I figured that last part out by what you said before. Though there is definitely a big difference, I have continued voting the same as before and really, there's nothing coming in from it.
I may as well ask one last thing-The following was a response to a post someone had awhile back, would you say it was a lie, a myth, or inaccurate?::
What you don't get is that the rewards pool is fixed. Non paying posts that have a bunch of votes aren't non paying because there aren't enough votes, theyre non paying because the huge amount of votes behind the top paying, whale supported posts devalue votes. And because the votes are calculated quadratically, the support they get devalues other votes disproportionately. Thats why your vote adds so much money to a top trending post, but almost nothing to a new post.
So someone like old timer, who has a vote worth 1 or 2 cents on a post like this, his vote is actually worth far more on a top paying post. If he went to trending and downvoted the top 10 trending posts, he would probably distribute 50 or 60 bucks to the rest of the posts in contention for the day.
Of course this is never going to happen, because overpaid authors here who get paid mainly for poor quality posts created a myth that there are rules about when you're allowed to downvote.... and they enforced that myth by threatening reprisals to anyone who voted in a way that they don't agree with.
TO put it another way, the money to give everyone 20 cents per post (or whatever) has to come from somewhere. Specifically, it has to come from other, higher paid posts' payouts.
Because of quadratic weighting, just voting for underpaid posts won't have a ton of effect. It would if you just did it for one, but it won't if you do it for all of them (because it will increase the total number of votes cast)
And this was someone else's response to this comment::
Damn, that brought some light to the situation. So basic income wouldnt even be possible, unless say, steemsports went away?
And if what you say is true, minnow votes would be better spent downvoting posts, which would increase value for others... that is extremely backward.
If this is accurate then it explains why people are up in arms. If it's not accurate but is somehow the general consensus of what's going on, well it has the same effect on the overall mindset but if you could set the record straight than it could stop the ongoing dispute.
vote buying is wrong. If steemsports would be non-profit, then I will be still against betting, but then they will at least proved that they are not making this for money.
They can really very easily right yet another script and power down in 13 weeks, only to power up all their voters accounts... and increase distribution even more.
This is a nonsense argument. They never claimed to be non-profit, nor is there any requirement that businesses within the Steem/it ecosystem be non-profit. We want to attract and encourage businesses to form, invest, build, market, and create value in the Steem/it ecosystem, which is exactly what Steemsports is doing.
The whole vote-buying aspect is completely irrelevant too. Most of the rewards on Steemsports, and everything else, come from whale voters who probably don't participate in the contests at all, or disqualify themselves by voting for both outcomes. If whales do participate (occasionally I do, just for the hell of it), the payout is far less than what I could earn on curation voting for something else (if I win, which isn't guaranteed).
When it comes down to it, Steemsports isn't really gambling, and it isn't really vote buying. It is sports blogging with a give-away or faucet-like contest attached to it. But either way, it certainly isn't non-profit (nor are most posters on here) and that's perfectly okay.
I beg to disagree since it is the reason so many people band wagon into the game with no interest in the content or "fun" and clearly the reason they are afraid to dump that aspect.
It's a sports-themed faucet. Faucets are popular (surprise, free money!) but they have their place. The nature of all faucets, including this one, is that they appeal most to small holders or non-holders (large holders can't be bothered), thus broadening and expanding the distribution.
I see nothing wrong with giving away coins, nor with getting support from major stakeholders to build a sports-themed concept and blog and a game around giving away coins, something which major stakeholders of crypto platforms often support. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Well said @smooth, thank you!
I do not said that they have to be non-profit. I said that if they would, then I could believe, that they are not taking advantage of whole community.
If the whole steemsports team were to be paid from the daily rewards, it would be more profitable for us to quit steemsports and go work @ mcdonalds for 1hr each and enjoy the rest of the day.
Free games have a place and time, and currently they are helping us bootsrap SteemSports (amongst other things, such as providing a faucet and driving engagement).
However, the only way how SS can win in the long term is if we can build something that can attract thousands of players from the outside of steem community that is willing to play real money games. That requires time and capital, and because SteemSports is based on STEEM, its user acquisition is also STEEM user acquisition.
More users on STEEM + demand for STEEM and SBD are a net positive side effect on the long term.
Perhaps we did a bad job of communicating our vision. SteemSports of yesterday is completely unsustainable, and it was never intended to be the final product. We are working hard on making SteemSports real, and no - we are not getting rich of the rewards pool. It merely gives us some bootstraping power to fuel future growth, as well as drives user engagement / marketing in the interim.
We are building an app that is a more user friendly frontend to the STEEM blockchain for these types of games. The Beta is out already. We create high quality content that may hold some SEO value and bring new users to steemit.com trough search engines. The voting mechanism, if working correctly, is supposed to reward this.
We are experimenting our way into a product market fit. We have built traction and following already. We know there are thousands more people out there that we will eventually serve.
+1
Giving away free coins would be fine if it were coming from the company or person. But it isn't. It comes from the reward pool and it given to them directly by the people who want the reward. It's a game of
"I'll give you some money if you give me some money" and this is what causes a band wagon effect and this is what undermines the system in place to prevent pile ons for rewards.
The point of curating is to find quality content that other people will like. By selling our votes we are choosing content that we have been bribed to choose instead of content that interests us.
It is voters deciding that coins from the reward fund should be given away (as part of a sports-themed concept that includes blogging, an element of gameplay, and wider distribution of rewards with a low barrier to participation).
It is no different than voters deciding that coins should be spent on a billboard, or a photoshoot, or developing a mobile app, helping to fund Steemfest, or paying a writer/blogger, or anything else.
That's the nature of this system. Voters decide to allocate rewards where they think it provides the most value. I and a good number of other voters think Steemsports giving away coins to players is a good use of reward funds. I don't even participate in the games most of the time.
@smooth , if this were true then they would not need to buy the votes. Somebody who votes to get a few pence back does NOT think that adds value. They're just "playing the game" because the only way to lose the game is to not play the game.
Someone for whom voting to get a few pence back is attractive likely has a vote that is so tiny it makes no real difference. You don't seem to get that most of the rewards on those posts come from the whale votes. The requirement to vote is actually a deterrent to play by larger stakeholders and focuses the benefits of the game on smaller stakeholders because for the former, the value of the vote is more than the payout. A larger stakeholder would make more just voting on one of his or her own comments (as I did here as a demonstration for a currently-estimated payout of $7, compared to the $0.16 I got from a recent Steemsports game; I'll burn the comment reward when I receive it).
Come on Boys :)
@smooth - how many % do you own of @steemsports? and how many % does @nextgencrypto own? etc.. etc... It is a serious question btw.
come on guys - this smell "organized crime" (in lack of a better term) long way, are you taking us for fools? Are @beanz and @noisy idiots who don´t understand it, then make us all a favor and do a real keynote-presentation and account for everything in the plans, you just paid yourself a $7 upvote, and obviously you like money and business no matter if you burn the $7 publicly tomorrow matters nothing when there is a million users on @steemit and that 50% rake is worth millions of dollars over time.
I have seen how @engagement, @illbeyourfriend, @thecyclist, @croatia, @ozchartart, @coinbar, @steemservices, @ozmaster, @nextgencrypto, @silversteem, @silver, @justin, @nextgenwitness, @berniesanders and yourself (guess how many real people are behind those accounts) shit and piss on @ned & @dantheman whenever you can, wherever you can - and I think it is time for all of you "who mined Steem from the start" to put all your cards on the table and tell us what the hell it is that you want.
Why not open up the " @steemsports company " for everyone and hold an ICO and be completely transparent about it and make sense instead of sneaking around acting like first time petty thieves/pick pockets.
Have you ever considered that there might be hundreds of people in here that would like to buy shares in the SteemSports Company? I mean seriously - that account will be worth billions of dollars over time accumulating steempower, or it will become worthless if everyone who is not an owner of @steemsports organize into a union against your casino in old fashion labour-party-style.
And who knows - maybe that is exactly what will happen as smart money is coming into steemit, while ... well, "the early miners" are trying to rule this little world.
How about some common decency and transparency for once? You all gave me hell for yelling at @heiditravels one time, and you guys are a gang who points fingers at everybody but yourself. Do you not understand that we see everything you do, and talk about everything we see?
How about you guys stop being shady, and start talking with us, be upfront and honest about things for a change?
Would be profitable.
@smooth , I absolutely understand that it is the whales who are funding these vote buying games that is why I am removing my witness vote from anybody who does.
It is quite peculiar that you think providing opportunities for smaller stakeholders to easily increase their holdings and broaden the distribution of SP would be harmful and a reason to change witness votes, but everyone is entitled to use their votes as they see fit (well, not apparently according to you, but I do believe this, and that it applies to everyone including you).
This is an illusion. The minnows are increasing their holdings by a rate of less than 20c per day while this one account goes from being a minnow to a whale within a couple months without ever having to buy any steem like the rest of us. This reduces the demand for steem as successful vote buying gamers no longer have to buy to become a whale.
There was never any idea that one had to necessarily buy to become a whale. The premise of Steem has always been that if you are successful in getting votes for your content, as Steemsports has been, along with many others, you can earn your SP. Or one can buy. Both paths have always been there, just as they are now (along with mining and witnessing).
Yes, this is what I have been hearing, and this is what concerns me, not whether people want to participate in games of hotness, that's their prerogative.
as @klye wrote, steemygames just showed one another example, that they have different perception of morality.
If that would be only about goodness of a platform and redistribiution, why they not spend their SP, to power up their voter on weekly basis? Because then, they would not have any interest in doing steemsports.