You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proof of Consent of Participants and the Danger Click-bait F'U Posts.
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.