RE: Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem by smooth

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @teamsteem/re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t004545216z

· @smooth · (edited)
> demand always fluctuates over time

What is important is not merely whether demand fluctuates, but whether _and how much_ it fluctuates (or can be reasonably expected to fluctuate) _as a direct result of an individual's actions_.  Fluctuation, in and of itself, does not tell us anything about the best actions to take. I could do something absolutely horrific qualitatively in terms of Steem's value, and Steem could still go up in value! I'm only small stakeholder, even if, relatively speaking, one of the largest. When it comes down to it, my little actions just aren't that important (and the same can even be said for @freedom, etc.)! 

> Short time this is true, but the longtime life of Steem is dependent on the market's demand over an extended period of time.

Long term is just the sum of a series of short terms. If you want the long term incentives to work you have to fix the short term incentives. That is a mathematical fact.

> but that would decrease the demand for Steem to the point of not being the most monetary rewarding strategy

Not necessarily. We've already discussed this.

Or even if so, @freedom could easily create 100 sock puppet accounts, post cookie cutter content that appeared to be meaningful and upvote those instead.

But even if that weren't the case, @freedom is only about a 3% stakeholder (as far as we know). Whatever @freedom does even with n^2, still has limited effect _on the overall value proposition_ (see above). The perfectly rational thing for @freedom to do is to maximize @freedom's wealth with self-enrichment, which is pretty much what @freedom has always done (first with dumb but exploitative curation bots, now with bid bots). If you don't think so, then you are arguing that someone who seems to be a pretty smart dude and objectively one of if not the most successful Steemian who turned nothing into $20+ million by behaving very smartly at every stage is and has been doing something very, very wrong. I don't think so.

My very serious suggestion to you would be to spend some time with a pencil and paper and work out some _very specific_ scenarios in terms of hypothetical (but plausible) stake distribution and also hypothetical (but plausible) numbers on how much these individual decisions effect the overall Steem value. If you do this you will find that the way the numbers work out, it is almost impossible for self-enrichment to ever not be the best individual strategy regardless of the reward curve (for each stakeholder who isn't already almost completely disenfranchised by a heavily top-heavy weighting system). 

If this has been done early on, the white paper and overall design would not have made such obvious blunders. Either no one did this, or they didn't care because the goal was to launch a coin with a compelling-sounding story to cash out on a big pump, whether or not the mechanism for what it claimed to be trying to accomplish actually worked.
properties (22)
post_id50,589,300
authorsmooth
permlinkre-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t015342100z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"users": ["freedom"], "app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}"
created2018-05-28 01:53:45
last_update2018-05-28 02:05:09
depth14
children8
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-04 01:53:45
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length2,939
author_reputation119,002,354,889,508
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
@teamsteem · (edited)
>  What is important is not merely whether demand fluctuates, but whether and how much it fluctuates (or can be reasonably expected to fluctuate) as a direct result of an individual's actions.

Proof-of-brain is proof-of-work as @anyx beautifully put in his post ["The Double Spending Problem on Steemit"](https://steemit.com/steemit/@anyx/the-double-spending-problem-on-steemit) . If people can fake proof-of-brain than that's problematic just like if someone can double spend on other blockchains. 

This clearly affects the market. Proof-of-brain/work can be gamed on Steem. 

> Whatever @freedom does even with n^2, still has limited effect on the overall value proposition (see above). 

I've agreed to this. It's not who does what, it's what the system allows that can be problematic. If the whole system of distribution is flawed then that clearly affect the market. 

If the Steem code gave 1,000,000 SP randomly every day to some random account that would clearly mess up the market. The same is true if the code would give 1,000,000 to some privileged account. 

If the numbers are smaller it simply makes it less obvious. 

I've single out @freedom as he could possibly screw the market on its own but maybe it would take more than just him. People looking to maximize their wealth are the norm so they won't be lacking. 

> My very serious suggestion to you would be to spend some time with a pencil and paper and work out some very specific scenarios in terms of hypothetical (but plausible) stake distribution and also hypothetical (but plausible) numbers on how much these individual decisions affect the overall Steem value.

It would be interesting and I would love to see these numbers just as much as any serious Steemians. 

> who turned nothing into $20+ million

They turned mined Steem into fiat money and some more potential reward in the future.

Again, I'm not saying I can't be wrong.

Proof-of-brain is proof-of-work. If people can simply upvote their own posts/comments with bots, equal to infinitesimal work for the best potential rewards then we can say proof-of-brain will leach away free Steem and that's obviously not a desirable thing. 

Under superlinear reward, the biggest whales can shower themselves with rewards to the point of concentrating an ever growing amount of Steem to themselves causing the free market to either act rationally and the demand for Steem will dwindle or the market will act irrationally...

Under superlinear rewards, those who have the most to lose have the power, while under linear reward those who don't engage in proof-of-brain, the exclusives self-upvoters have the advantage, just as Dan [pointed out](https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/proof-of-good-governance#@dan/re-mikepm74-re-dan-proof-of-good-governance-20171231t224802732z).

[Evil Whales](https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/evil-whales) by @dan is the post I've read the most on Steem. I must have read it close to 20 times if not more. That being said, me and @dan have some diverging perspectives on some aspects of life. 

One of them is that I'm of the opinion that we should avoid eating animals if possible due to the harm it cause them. To me it couldn't be more obvious. 

Yet I respect Dan whole heartily and just as I could be wrong about not eating animal, Dan and I are probably wrong about many things. I'm very aware of this. 

It's not obvious to support superlinear rewards for me. I do it because it's my truth. Dan even mention the social network he's working on EOS will have linear reward. I'm not exactly sure how this will work but I'll be looking with interest. 

I respect your perspectives on Steem and they are clearly helping me. I'm mean it. And I mean it when I say I could be wrong...
properties (22)
post_id50,595,694
authorteamsteem
permlinkre-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t030753608z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "users": ["anyx", "freedom", "dan"], "links": ["https://steemit.com/steemit/@anyx/the-double-spending-problem-on-steemit", "https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/proof-of-good-governance#@dan/re-mikepm74-re-dan-proof-of-good-governance-20171231t224802732z", "https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/evil-whales"], "app": "steemit/0.1"}"
created2018-05-28 03:07:51
last_update2018-05-28 03:22:36
depth15
children7
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-04 03:07:51
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length3,741
author_reputation284,009,804,791,421
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
@smooth · (edited)
$0.77
> Proof-of-brain is proof-of-work

Maybe it is supposed to be, but in reality (currently, whether n^2 or n) it is not. That is probably the biggest part of our disconnect on this. The system  needs at a minimum tweaks and at a maximum a major rework so that it does actually function like that. 

(There are other issues here, like I'm not even sure what proof-of-brain being proof-of-work is supposed to accomplish. Cryptocurrencies don't increase in value simply because (proof of) useless work is performed; it takes more than that to give them value. That's kind of a story for another day though.)

> Under superlinear reward, the biggest whales can shower themselves with rewards to the point of concentrating an ever growing amount of Steem to themselves causing the free market to either act rationally and the demand for Steem will dwindle ...

This is not a good thing!  

> If people can simply upvote their own posts/comments with bots, equal to infinitesimal work for the best potential rewards then we can say proof-of-brain will leach away free Steem and that's obviously not a desirable thing.

We know that under linear rewards the system can devolve into simple interest  (ignoring downvotes, so somewhat unrealistic). I have said this before and I've never gotten an answer: How bad is that? All it means is that inflation is reduced, yet nearly the entire value proposition of the blockchain remains: People can still post and comment. They can still transact, conduct business, and build games. New members can join. There are successful blockchain projects without inflation (or without much). If Steem is one of them, how is that a big problem, or even a problem at all? 

Under a 'simple interest' (actually 'reduced inflation') mode, the 'proof-of-brain' rewarding scheme is (mostly) neutered, but it was never all that effective anyway, in accomplishing much of anything. (Did it reward the best content? Did it help create a very effective system of content discovery? Did it reliably reward new unknown users with valuable contributions as a way of encouraging rapid viral growth? The answer to all of these questions is "No".)

This hardly seems catastrophic. I don't even see why reduced inflation is worse _at all_ compared to higher inflation which gets given (under assumed 'legitimate' proof-of-brain voting) to weak contributions of questionable value.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id50,605,550
authorsmooth
permlinkre-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t045902800z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "app": "steemit/0.1"}"
created2018-05-28 04:59:09
last_update2018-05-28 05:10:21
depth16
children3
net_rshares191,035,097,810
last_payout2018-06-04 04:59:09
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.580 SBD
curator_payout_value0.193 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length2,387
author_reputation119,002,354,889,508
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@teamsteem ·
> That is probably the biggest part of our disconnect on this. 

I agree. 

> We know that under linear rewards the system can devolve into simple interest (ignoring downvotes, so somewhat unrealistic). I have said this before and I've never gotten an answer: How bad is that? 

Then it should be made simple interest  on SP. Steem shouldn't say proof-of-brain increase the value of Steem when people engage in it if it only decreases the reward of those who actually engage in it. 

> Did it help create a very effective system of content discovery? Did it reliably reward new unknown users with valuable contributions as a way of encouraging rapid viral growth? The answer to all of these questions is "No".)

I mostly agree but I'm convinced under n2 and over time the answer would have been yes.
properties (22)
post_id50,617,904
authorteamsteem
permlinkh-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t070929029z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}"
created2018-05-28 07:09:27
last_update2018-05-28 07:09:27
depth17
children2
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-04 07:09:27
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length799
author_reputation284,009,804,791,421
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
@anyx ·
$0.62
Thanks for mentioning me here, fascinating conversations still happening on this post which I think is amazing.

I wanted to chip in my 2 sbdcents since you mentioned my post, what my current ideas are surrounding it.

What is interesting to note is that in my post, the conclusion that I come to is actually regardless of n^2 or linear or even anything in-between or around, it's nicely summarized in the following quote:

>While the Bitcoin system is proactive in that the transaction will be rejected immediately, right now, the only system we have is retroactive. The only way to reject value going towards a double spend, is for the community to retroactively remove the value on that transaction. This is a round-about way of saying that the post must be downvoted to remove the reward. Upon this, the transaction in a sense was not rejected, but rather simply not rewarded.

I have been thinking a lot about this recently with the current situation on Steem, and I think that this is the most important facet to getting "proof of brain" to work right. I don't think you can simply change the reward distribution and hope to solve the problems, no, I think we must ***reject*** things that do not satisfy 'proof of brain'.

I have been a strong proponent of separate voting power pools for upvotes and downvotes, because this mentally removes the opportunity cost of downvoting something (as it currently 'costs' an upvote). You would have your pool of upvotes for incentivizing good behaviour, and your pool of downvotes for disincentivizing bad behaviour. They should not be mixed pools, as both are needed.

I think if people started freely downvoting these super bid-botty trash posts, economic incentives will have to find a new equilibrium. People who bid-bot garbage might very well lose out when 'proof of brain' starts working, and brainless posts are rejected -- and if they spent money and got nothing due to being downvoted and rejected, it's an even more direct influence on their behaviour.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id50,694,897
authoranyx
permlinkre-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t182057865z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}"
created2018-05-28 18:20:57
last_update2018-05-28 18:20:57
depth16
children2
net_rshares152,828,078,248
last_payout2018-06-04 18:20:57
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.461 SBD
curator_payout_value0.154 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length2,010
author_reputation98,476,665,211,015
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@teamsteem ·
$0.62
I'm glad you felt compelled to participate. I really enjoyed that post of yours. 

Like I said, under linear reward, even if we downvote everyone who doesn't engage in proof-of-brain, then all the reward are returned to the pool for other abusers to take. 

Pushing this logic to its limit, 50% of stake will down vote 50% of the rest and the pool will still be full and the pool control by dust accounts. 

Sure it won't happen but the problem remains the same, it's infinitely less costly to abuse than it is to police. Create a bot, comment 10 times votes those 10 comments, hope nobody flags you. The more people do it the less chance of being single out and flagged.
👍  , , ,
properties (23)
post_id50,704,297
authorteamsteem
permlinkx-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t194745309z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "app": "steemit/0.1"}"
created2018-05-28 19:47:45
last_update2018-05-28 19:47:45
depth17
children0
net_rshares153,669,623,594
last_payout2018-06-04 19:47:45
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.467 SBD
curator_payout_value0.151 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length671
author_reputation284,009,804,791,421
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (4)
@kevinwong ·
Yes, what @teamsteem mentioned. What you have in mind is part of the plan, but it likely can't be the only change. The other changes required are preventative in nature and promotes better behaviour with the most minimum amount of work imaginable when it comes to voting on Steem, which is supporting the greater good. It has to be the path of least resistance. But it's not possible when one can just sell their votes for so much returns compared to the proof-of-brain stuff. The economy should at least place curation and vote trading on more or less equal grounds, if not favouring the former.

The suggestion / proposal which also includes the separate downvote pool can be found here: https://steemit.com/steem/@kevinwong/the-number-one-fix-to-improve-steem-s-chances-for-mainstream-adoption

But of course, we may also not want to be so confident, so any simple iteration is better than none at this point. I just think that some of us have debated and reasoned this out well enough to merit the full implementation..
properties (22)
post_id50,711,216
authorkevinwong
permlinkx-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t205538952z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "links": ["https://steemit.com/steem/@kevinwong/the-number-one-fix-to-improve-steem-s-chances-for-mainstream-adoption"], "app": "steemit/0.1", "users": ["teamsteem"]}"
created2018-05-28 20:55:42
last_update2018-05-28 20:55:42
depth17
children0
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-04 20:55:42
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,023
author_reputation508,940,095,151,809
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000