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

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @smooth/re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180526t164014800z

· @teamsteem ·
$0.05
>  The premise that whales would behave better because they have 'more to lose' was and is entirely false.

Would behave within the limits of what the system allows. 

Rational people act according to what they have to lose or gain. The more they have to lose according to their pyramid of values, the more cautious they will be. 

> The trick is to identify the proper balance between incentives and the risk of abuse.

My premise is that, under superlinear reward, if the top of the pyramid sends too much of the reward back to themselves, this should decrease the demand for Steem, making the price to go down, decreasing the wealth of Steemians, making the system self-regulating. 

>  I don't see it in n^2 (nor in any curve really, without other changes). I'm open to other alternatives.

I'm also very much open to other alternatives.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id50,414,906
authorteamsteem
permlinkre-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180526t175923087z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "app": "steemit/0.1"}"
created2018-05-26 17:59:21
last_update2018-05-26 17:59:21
depth3
children21
net_rshares14,411,615,953
last_payout2018-06-02 17:59:21
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.042 SBD
curator_payout_value0.011 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length841
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 (1)
@smooth · (edited)
$0.50
> Would behave within the limits of what the system allows.

Yes and it was well-demonstrated during the n^2 era that this often involves/involved self-enriching behavior. Having more to lose was actually synonomous with having more to gain by behaving selfishly, so there is an unfortunate symmetry which doesn't really help anything.

> My premise is that, under superlinear reward, if the top of the pyramid sends too much of the reward back to themselves, this should decrease the demand for Steem, making the price to go down, decreasing the wealth of Steemians, making the system self-regulating.

This ignores tragedy of the commons dynamics. Perhaps it might be true of stake became so concentrated that the top of the pyramid consists of stakeholders with _enormous_ stakes (say 90%). With top stakeholders having 1-3% each this is not demonstrated at all. It is a hard case to make to someone with 1% that how they vote with their 1% has a huge difference to the overall price of STEEM and very clear that how they vote has a huge difference to their own personal wealth.

I do not think we want a system with top stakeholders having 90%. We need a better solution (or alternately conclude that proof-of-brain has no solution and rationally pivot accordingly).
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id50,422,413
authorsmooth
permlinkre-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180526t191030300z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}"
created2018-05-26 19:10:36
last_update2018-05-26 19:11:30
depth4
children19
net_rshares129,340,459,660
last_payout2018-06-02 19:10:36
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.375 SBD
curator_payout_value0.121 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,270
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 (2)
@teamsteem ·
>  the n^2 era that this often involves/involved self-enriching behavior

Self-enriching can only occur if the demand for Steem goes up which is what is at stake here, the primary goal.

How I understand it, I came to the conclusion the current system should be modified for reasons I've stated. 

I don't know what is the best solution and I respect and understand the changes can only come from consensus. 

I'm grateful to be able to voice my opinion and have this discussion.
properties (22)
post_id50,429,449
authorteamsteem
permlinkre-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180526t202332119z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "app": "steemit/0.1"}"
created2018-05-26 20:23:30
last_update2018-05-26 20:23:30
depth5
children18
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-02 20:23:30
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_length479
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)
> Self-enriching can only occur if the demand for Steem goes up which is what is at stake here, the primary goal.

No that is not true. Most of the time when considering a specific action, the demand and price of Steem doesn't change, or change due to a variety of market factors which aren't connected to any individual stakeholder's action. If I vote myself a $400 reward, there is no mechanism by which that will reduce my personal Steem holdings by $400 or more. I just get about $400 richer. Maybe my actions reduce the value of my Steem holdings by a dollar or two, maybe not even that.

The self-enrichment is quite obvious.

_Even if_ everybody does this 100% of the time (which isn't the case), it is far from clear that it would destroy the value of Steem. The value of Steem doesn't derive solely and directly from rewards being allocated in a particular way, or at all. The value of Steem comes from many different factors. 

The model of destroying the value of one's investment as an incentive to behave in a particualr way is profoundly broken at multiple levels.

In case it isn't clear, I'm not advocating for everyone to take the most short-sighted and selfish possible action (though many will often do so anyway). I'm examining the logic supporting the model and finding it lacking.
properties (22)
post_id50,434,144
authorsmooth
permlinkre-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180526t211557400z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}"
created2018-05-26 21:16:00
last_update2018-05-27 00:14:30
depth6
children17
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-02 21:16:00
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_length1,302
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
@ade-greenwise · (edited)
I agree with teamsteem. Why would people , stakeholders, want to shoot themselves in the foot?
properties (22)
post_id50,648,077
authorade-greenwise
permlinkre-teamsteem-re-smooth-re-teamsteem-re-kevinwong-time-to-wake-up-and-fix-steem-s-voting-problem-20180528t120908519z
categorysteem
json_metadata"{"tags": ["steem"], "app": "steemit/0.1"}"
created2018-05-28 12:09:12
last_update2018-05-28 12:09:39
depth4
children0
net_rshares0
last_payout2018-06-04 12:09:12
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_length94
author_reputation5,194,641,198,313
root_title"Time To Wake Up and Fix Steem's Voting Problem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars0