The account-based voting revolution

in steem •  4 months ago

Steem has evolved dramatically from the initial implementation in 2016. However, one of the key features has persisted - stake-weighted voting. 

The idea was based on the assumption that the highest staked holders of Steem (i.e. whales) would act in the best interest of the platform and delegate their stake to the best curators of the platform. Not just this - they were assigned exponentially more influence with an n^2 reward distribution curve. I.e. someone with 1 million SP will have allocate 1 million times more reward than the average person with 1000 SP. Not 1000 more as you'd expect. 

Of course, such an assumption is utterly ludicrous and goes against human psychology 101. As expected, whales started acting selfishly in their best short-term self interests. In June 2017, the n^2 curve was changed to n^1, vastly democratizing voting. Of course, the 1 million SP still had 1000 times more influence. It still wasn't enough. 

At the GOPAX meetup, Ned had a lot to say about this. 


(Skip to 1:04:11)

Firstly, Ned clarifies that Steem's algorithm was designed to reward the best quality content the most, and that is still the intention. So it's reassuring to see that he still cares about quality of content. Granted, that's a pretty vague goal, and not realistic, but there are magnitudes to how far one is from that goal. 

Given they still have this goal, Ned was fairly contrite in acknowledging that the current algorithms have failed entirely. We can see this clearly - there's zero relation between quality and rewards. Indeed, over time, as Steemians have learned to exploit and abuse the system, there appears to be somewhat of an inverse relation at this time. 

A few weeks ago, I made a comment that I don't see this system as sustainable, and it will need a radical solution people may not like. Ned seems to agree. 

He identifies stake-weighted voting as the single culprit for this vast mismatch between quality and rewards. Instead, in SMTs, we'll have the option for a different type of reward distribution based on account-based voting. I.e. one vote means one vote, irrespective of how much SP one holds. There'll still be a superlinear curation rewards curve, so curators who find the post early will be rewarded much more. I'm assuming magnitude of curation rewards are still tied to stakeholding, but there's no mention of that. The first issue is - this totally kills demand for SP. But then, one can argue there are shitcoins worth far more than Steem that have no such concept similar to SP - it's all liquid. 

Important caveat - this is an optional feature of SMT and may not be something Steem adopts. But let's assume it does. 

The obvious effect is, it'll shut down voting bots, abusive whales, scammers, curation projects overnight. Each to his own. Of course, people can cooperate and collude, but there's no longer a way for one person to dictate thousands of times more rewards than everyone else. Of course, there's a massive downside to this - you are effectively empowering random spammers to allocate the same rewards as bonafide members of the community. Whales can make thousands of accounts to effectively Sybil attack the system too.

Ned does not address this issue, but I must assume Steemit Inc are working on a solution. My suggestion would be along the lines of active members from each community votes for curators, and the highly ranked curators then have higher influence over the reward pool. No such ranking system is beyond abuse, but there'll at least be some method to the madness. Furthermore, I'd also suggest a decentralized judiciary system to deal with cases of abuse. Yeah, I know Steemians will hate this. Of course, SMTs can take a more centralized approach and appoint curators themselves. This centralized approach will always be far more efficient than any decentralized method of curation. Yeah, Steemians will hate this implication even more. Sorry folks, but this is how human society works.

This is a complete revolution. There's a lot to digest here, so give it a watch, think about it, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Equally, there's precious little information, and it raises many questions. This was just a tease, I hope for a detailed post and whitepaper on the account-based voting concept from Steemit Inc soon. 

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

What I would love to see is a mixed rewards distribution algorithm that takes into account:

  • SP: killing STEEM demand would kill the ecosystem. Shitcoins won't survive forever. So I think SP should be part of the game... to some extent
  • Number of votes: democratization
  • Reputation of voters: votes of respected people should count more, and this could counter spammers, especially if flagging works better. Also, this would encourage people to use one respected account instead of creating masses of fake accs to get a higher number of votes.
    Of course, this would require a new reputation algorithm whose result would actually resemble the reality.
  • heavy voting malus: if an account gives more than a certain percentage of votes to a single account (let's say 5% per week?), the vote value should decrease gradually, down to 0% in extreme cases. This would have to include self-voting.

Just a quick shot, but I really think this could serve...

·

Some time ago I formulated some partly similar (diminishing returns) ideas to make self-voting, circle-voting and spamming less attractive by ...

  • ... thinking about a reward curve which started as n^2 / exponential (thus flat), and then later changed into linear which would work against self-voting as well as excessive rewards.
    @clayop had a similar idea.
  • ... implementing diminishing returns when upvoting the same accounts (including own ones) again and again.
  • ... reintroducing the restriction to four (or less) full paid posts per day (from some hard forks ago) which was very reasonable.

It seems obvious to me that it has to move in this direction sooner or later as the blockchain (hopefully) begins to go more mainstream. Obtaining and retaining great users and curators will be increasingly difficult if the price of tokens increase and lower inflation + more users fighting for the scarce distribution makes it harder for new motivated users/curators to establish themselves. If so, why should they choose STEEM and not an inevitable competitor?

The main challenge will not be to make it better in terms of how it elevates the best content (any idiot can achieve that as it can hardly get much worse). The difficulty will be to maintain - ideally strengthen - the utility and thus demand for the token at the same time while also making it seem fair and robust to large and small stakeholders both.

I'll see if I can get a long piece on how I believe this can best be accomplished within the frameworks that already exist (or is not too much of stretch from what we have). But this is where we need more of the brainpower we have on the platform to work together for sure. I imagine the solution will be a new form of collaboration between Dapps and Community projects that we haven't yet seen.

·

Hi friend...how are you .. ??
I like this your post....

·
·

Please Stop - @mdsujonislam

You just said "your post" and in your your last 100 comments you used 66 phrases considered to be spam and you made this exact same comment 1 times. You've received 0 flags and you may see more on comments like these. These comments are the reason why your Steem Sincerity API classification scores are Spam: 76.60% and Bot: 2.40%

Please stop making comments like this and read the ways to avoid @pleasestop and earn the support of the community.

My two cents.

First of all, I agree the current reward system is far from being optimal (it is even wrong). This being said, one sentence got my particular attention:

My suggestion would be along the lines of active members from each community votes for curators, and the highly ranked curators then have higher influence over the reward pool.

I like this. It goes very well with the development of the communities. But how is this different from delegations? I would say not much, somehow.

However, one may need a pool of people (manually) checking the behavior of the curators in order to prevent from abuses at this level.

So in short, thus may go along with the community deployment and kill the entire voting-bot mess. If I am not wrong. This is nice :)

·

I like this. It goes very well with the development of the communities. But how is this different from delegations? I would say not much, somehow.

Crucial difference. Currently, whales dominates the reward pool. After something like that, reputed curators and community leaders such as yourself will dominate the reward pool. Doesn't matter if you have a million SP or 1000 SP, at the end of the day your voting influence is based upon how good a curator the Steem community thinks you are.

Of course, this is prone to abuse and circlejerk too, but at least it makes some sense and reflects the public, rather than just some nonsense algorithm currently that assumes "the richer you are, the better curator you are".

However, one may need a pool of people (manually) checking the behavior of the curators in order to prevent from abuses at this level.

I agree, and I suggested this in the next sentence - a judiciary system to stamp out abuse. Steemians can vote for people to be elected as judges etc.

Besides that, the community can choose to unvote their curators, just like they do with witnesses now.

Note - all of the above are simply my vague suggestions, and I don't expect Steem to actually adopt any of it. I'll be interested to see their solution though.

·
·

Agreed. Something (anything) should be done, in one way or the other. The current system is not sustainable on the long run.

·
·

Or downvotes could be used as a measure of curator quality. If after the vote there is flags, the curator reputation Go down.

·
·
·

Not necessarily in the way reputation is currently implemented (if I am not wrong).

i like the idea of bringing the best content at the top, but it depends of who are curators and who are the readers who decide what is a good content, because everybody has an opinion, so this could influence the future of steemit , we need to choose who are the right curators and the readers because this could bring to another issue like censorship.

As you yourself state, this is a revolution but i found the same issues on this as you did. My fear is that by making it all an equal playing field those that invested the most into the platform, ie. whales, will not be rewarded sufficiently, thus pulling out their SP and crashing the price.
The stake based reward system, i really dont believe was ever created with the intention of creating a platform that rewards the highest quality content, but rather it was used as a way to attract investments. They would have gone with this route in the first place if that wasnt the case.

As much as i love 1account/1vote, equality and all that, that just wont work by itself. We need a somewhat of a hybrid system. I really believe if he flips the board this hard Steemit and all the other front-ends will crumble.

One suggestion that they should be doing, is coming up with an internal condenser that no one outside of Steemit sees... that uses the new algorithms to see how the new voting system would change the vote rewards over a period of time, and have reports ready to show that data when the time comes.

(During the alpha roll out of analyzing the effectiveness, so they can tweak things)

Sort of "snapshot the chain for a week" so we could go to a website like this after we move that algorithm to BETA for public review:

http://votingsnapshot.steemit.com and everyone can then view steemit for an entire week frozen in time with the only content available during the 7 day payout period of that snapshot.

They could also include data from the current chain rewards next to what the algorithm payouts would have been under the proposed system.

So you'd see someone with $1.42 payout (old) and $8.25 payout (new)

Conversely, you'd see someone with a $242.95 payout (old) and a $80.52 payout (new)

Of course though, when you change the tide this way, you should expect the tide to cause a huge reorg of value on the chain.

For example..

Make no mistake, the massive whales would simply start transferring wealth to their individual user botnets, and adapt to the new system within a week.

I'm quite nervous how this would play out. The one caveat we have is there are smart people working in development, and every issue we can think of has probably already been talked about and addressed in their meetings.

So I suppose we have no choice but to just wait and see this play out.

Not sure I follow how this would mean the end of curation projects - actually it seems this would boost them up. Curie for example has the second most followed curation trail on steemauto, currently with 995 users trailing their vote behind. Under current system, Curie's influence comes mostly from the large @hendrikdegrote vote trailing and to a lesser extent the ~100k SP that Curie itself votes with. So yes, if it goes to one account, one vote, those two large votes would not have as much influence. But currently, the 995 trailing votes from steemauto mean next to nothing in terms of the payout that a post receives on a @curie upvote because the vast majority of the trailing voters are low stake users. But it is still nearly 1000 users who think that Curie is doing a good job curating. Wouldn't those trailing votes mean that Curie actually would have more influence if this is the way things went?

My own curation project, @r-bot, has ~100 voters who have joined its curation trail on steemauto. People have joined the trail because @r-bot consistently upvotes good content. I haven't promoted it much, @r-bot does not regularly post, nor leave a comment. The team of manual curators just quietly goes out and upvotes good content. Wouldn't this change mean that the @r-bot vote would suddenly be worth a hell of a lot more than the ~ $.50 the manual curators who vote with @r-bot can hand out now?

·

Yes, that depends on the type of curation project. The projects which have 2 million SP delegated to them by one or two people, but don't have much of a trail will lose out; while something like Curie which has a large popular following but few delegations may benefit. I'm fairly sure Ned didn't absolutely mean "one vote is one vote", there has to be some systems to keep spammers and dust accounts from exerting so much influence; while also offering greater influence to active members. Let's wait and see what they come up with.

Thanks for sharing this @liberosist - Even interesting thoughts and messages, nothing new! And maybe too late to implement this into an existing ecosystem ( mean the community internal ecosystem which was from the start a platform with 1) Creators, 2) Engagers, 3) Investors (or call them Steeem / SP stake holders).

My main struggle(s) with implementing such a fair / equal vote model is indeed three fold:

  1. We all know the current system is not fair and enable abuse - no doubt, this is not new indeed, we all talk about even before the last Hard Forks

  2. Changing this now will probably mainly harm the guys working most here to increase their SP being not park of circle jerks or benefiting from early invests

  3. Spammers and Scammer will kill the blockchain if no ID check is in place - even ID checks might not help as people are creative when it goes towards gaming a system

Resteemed.

Important caveat - this is an optional feature of SMT and may not be something Steem adopts. But let's assume it does.

I think you're right, if an SMT proves itself in the wild to be better in configuration than the main Steem coin, we will probably see it's config adopted. I'm still not sure how that would look from a business perspective at the time, but this is what Stinc have implied I think if you read between the lines.

Ned does not address this issue, but I must assume Steemit Inc are working on a solution.

I don't think they are. Really. All bets are on SMTs period, I would be very surprised if we saw any significant change to the Steem coin config until after SMTs are released.

My suggestion would be along the lines of active members from each community votes for curators, and the highly ranked curators then have higher influence over the reward pool.

If you're not just talking idling here, draw out a short spec for an SMT based around this.

·

I don't think they are. Really. All bets are on SMTs period, I would be very surprised if we saw any significant change to the Steem coin config until after SMTs are released.

But this is a feature of SMT. There's no way they can implement an account-based voting feature without effective mitigations for the obvious problems with it.

If you're not just talking idling here, draw out a short spec for an SMT based around this.

That was idle talk, of course. I'm not really interested in SMT, neither do I have the skill to draw actual specs or implement them.

·
·

Oh, well I just re-read what I wrote and it could have sounded pouty, I meant it sincerely! I've been sketching similar ideas for the last 6 months so am genuinely interested, but sure, idle talk is good too 😅🤟

Important caveat - this is an optional feature of SMT and may not be something Steem adopts. But let's assume it does.

The first issue is - this totally kills demand for SP.

And perhaps the main reason why this 'optional feature' of SMT won't come over to Steem?

I have thought for a long time that SP should be held as tightly as possible as the Steem ecosystem grows. A change to remove demand for SP is a huge step backwards isn't it?

SP, an investment with a 13 week withdrawal period will bring more stability as time progresses, while SMT will grow the value of STEEM?

Ah well, need to rip my blueprints up!

·

I don't think crypto traders like SP. It used to be a 2 year power down before. When it was changed to a 3 month schedule, it was met with a price increase from $0.10 to $1. (After the first 3 month period ended)

Not to mention, random shitcoins with zero usage are worth billions, far more than Steem, despite having nothing like SP. It's all liquid, and it works for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and hundreds of other shitcoins.

·
·

When it was changed to a 3 month schedule, it was met with a price increase from $0.10 to $1. (After the first 3 month period ended)

Thank you for this weeks golden snippet of information. It's things like this that you don't find in the whitepaper :)

While i cant current get my head around how account-based voting would work here with regards to SP becoming less useful, taking a route that negates the use of bid-bots and circle-jerks is certainly a good thing.

Boosting incentives for curation as much as possible has to be the way to go. Those that don't have the time can delegate to communities or people that do - they will get an honest share (if they so wish - many delegate for nothing) and the race to find the best content will be back. Great :D

·

I note the point has often been made regarding locking up investments is generally time-limited in other investment vehicles which become completely liquid after some point, and isn't a feature of many cryptos, like BTC, that don't seem to lack investors.

Perhaps @ned has another trick up his sleeve to maintain some limitation on liquidity. Perhaps he reckons it isn't necessary, nor beneficial, any longer.

I will eagerly await more details, as I'm sure you will also.

·
·

They can increase the inflation/interest rate you get for locking your coins in Steempower. Currently you get 7% and it diminishes each year. But they can always increase it to provide a "return" for holding steempower.

·
·
·

I hadn't realized that incentive.

Thanks!

·
·

Food for thought isn't it.

Just when you thought they'd blown it, or at least read 500 times that they had :)

·
·
·

I confess that eating my words of doubt will taste delicious!

Regarding 1 account 1 vote - what will happen is that those with a lot of steempower will simply be able to create multiple accounts to benefit.

If you had say 20,000 SP it's easy to create 2000 new accounts each with 10SP and have much the same effect,

I believe this was the reason Dan and Ned decided against the 1 account 1 vote idea in the first place.

·

Doesn't how much money you hold. But yes, the issue is that anyone can make tons of accounts. I.e. sybil attacks. There'll be some system for that, I'm sure. We'll have to wait and see what it is.

Loading...

Someone will surely hate it. The one who came here for profit with bare hands. That is not creating the quality of not trying to communicate but only to fill his purse at the expense of the milking system. But there are also those who really go the honest way, who came here to share their creativity, do a great job, teach or learn. And there are such people here. And they will. You know, it reminds me of a biblical legend about the great flood. When God decided to destroy all evil, saving the innocent in Noah's ark. Perhaps such a reconstruction of the platform will really help to weed out all unnecessary, dirty and unnecessary. And in the end there will be only that for which it was created. Quality content, fairness and lively international communication.

Many good post on steemit don’t get their required reward because of their SP or reputation influence is no high, trust me I have seen someone who is on reputation 27 putting on a good post that will wow anybody that read it, but he was not recognized.
But the way the steemit commuinty is growing day by day with the inflow of new Steemians, this has made it hard for good post to be seem and rewarded accordingly. I suggest that some accounts should be created and saddle with the responsibility of looking for good post and not minding the person’s reputation and reward accordingly.@liberosist

·

Thats why there are alot of communities that reward exceptional yet undiscovered authors and a very good example of that is @curie

·
·

But how many of them do we have ?@ligarayk For me we still need many of them to do the same job that @curie does because more people are joining the platform on a daily basis

·
·
·

For now, there are still few that successfully have done their job but there are a lot that just started and thats the challenge there. We're still on our way though, we are on our way to the moon.

·
·
·
·

Nice one @ligarayk you guys should keep up the good job. Together we all will soar high!

You make some suggestions that are crucial to keep Steemit relevant for the future. The "decentralized judiciary system" I totally agree with and articulated a long time ago. On top of that, I think we need to have a central place where abusive accounts are listed "the wall of shame" as I call it. In the past I tried to make this happen, but even when developers liked the idea, they all backed out when we were at a stage to actually create/develop it, the reason "we dont want to associate ourselves that publicly with such project"; basically all these people were scared to be hunted down by whales. Wrt the multiple account per individual: Why not introduce (through a third party) ID check. The third party keeps the records of what account belongs to which individual. All done automatically, with all the data encrypted so that even this third party cannot view the data itself; However it will be able to link accounts to a single individual which can be used to enforce rules on individuals rather than accounts. In ONO, the new social network that will use the EOS blockchain, they give verified accounts to be real person benefits over none verfiied accounts and show the verification as part of the profile, kinda verification mark. It still needs to be proven, but that idea is content originated from verified accounts will get more traction and get more rewarded.

@liberosist I was talking with Kevin about this the other day and he is a strong advocate for superlinear, but I felt in some ways a third variable should be thrown into the equation.

I'd be curious to see if there was a way to add reputation into the equation to alter the vote power. It seems to me given how long it takes to build reputation, this could be a good equalizer to give more power to those who put in the sweat equity to ear a good rep. No research on this just speaking off the cuff.

·

"given how long it takes to build reputation". Hmmm..... you must not have heard of bid bots? You can get to REP 66 in a week, easily, or less even. With the rise of vote selling REP means absolutely nothing now. Well, not nothing. It mostly means now that you had some money to invest in yourself.

·
·

The current Rep system is worthless, but there can be a better system to gauge reputation. It's on the distant roadmap for Hivemind, at least.

·
·
·

How about if reputation system depend on liquid steem power person has instead of delegated sp? I guess that would work since most voting bots have sp delegated from other users (or should I say whales?)

·
·
·
·

The idea here is to completely do away with any kind of wealth-weighted voting.

·

Superlinear is terrible given the state of Steem currently. Vote trading services command a significant portion of SP, and they will start dominating exponentially were we to go back to it. Minnows will be left out more than ever.

That was along the lines of what I was suggesting, people can vote for their favourite curators, and that gives curators greater influence. It is kind of a subjective reputation system. Prone to abuse, but much less so democratized. As for the current Rep system on Steem, that's utterly meaningless.

This is great news! I have long been arguing that stake-weighting is at the root of many problems Steemit has, and my brief discussions with @ned and many devs and witnesses had left me discouraged. @ned assured me that he would address this amongst other issues we spoke about, and I am deeply gratified to not only hear him address it today, but to cut right to the root of the problem.

Absent further details, I can but hope there are mechanisms similar to your suggestions @liberosist, like the vetted curator/reputation method to create some community derived confidence in curation.

I have probably spoken numerous times about my disappointment and lack of confidence that this happy day would come to pass, and there is nothing I would rather do than eat those words! Much confidence has been restored to me today in Stinc and @ned.

Let's hope I never feel led to eat those words!

Thanks!

My suggestion would be along the lines of active members from each community votes for curators, and the highly ranked curators then have higher influence over the reward pool.

This sure to a be a nice idea but with the creation of multiple communities daily, it will kind of be hard to pick who or which community actually deserves to get the delegation and will he/she act on the best interest of the site or solely base on the community they control.

·

The concept of delegation doesn't tie in. The community decides for themselves who are the best curators, and rewards are distributed accordingly. If the curators don't act in the best interest of the community, votes will be removed.

·
·

For that reputation voting, bots will need to be excluded, or accounts like @berniesanders will have all the rep. I will be interested in seeing how that is managed. Several witnesses have argued vehemently with me that it isn't possible, while I pointed out that far lesser programmers than Stinc employs have managed to exclude bots.

While complete exclusion of bots and socks is desirable from such a mechanism, perfection is the enemy of good enough.

I'll settle for good enough.

·
·
·

Good enough has great value in itself. I agree.

·
·

Okay thanks for your response and clarification

·
·

votes will be removed.

Meaning, the curator will lose his/her influence to the community?

I'm not a friend of the whale games and meanwhile, they are far away from my Steem-alldays acting. They are just another part of the blockchain and have nothing to do with me, since @ned's bots stopped to vote my postings of the Guild #deutsch. The idea to vote any whale outside my community or buying votes or vests is much too far out of my thinking. Anyway, there's a „But!“, directly following your proposals, @liberosist.

Am I wrong to declare, that your proposals are not very investor friendly? In my opinion the STEEM exchange rate is clearly dedicated of the Bitcoin, but just after BTC comes the marketcap of STEEM. That means to me, we have to keep the investors engaged on the blockchain. When you rule the system in a way interests of invests will decrease, a lot of money will leave the blockchain for going to places, where the interest are generated much more easier. If they exist. I don't know.

These are my concerns, when Circle-jerks, Sock-puppets, vote and vest usury will be surpressed by a new reward system. On the other hand, all the small Vest accounts are still not strong enough, to compensate the escape of big money. I think, it this not a very easy game for Ned. He does all he can, to carry his baby on, but he can't do this without the big investors. The Steem has clearly to satisfy their wishes of interests and comfort.

Any revolution in the reward–system will produce big alarms, to expel a lot of these fat shy deers from the yummy blooming meadows of the Steem. Ned's in an awkward situation. He knows what is going wrong, while all the properly feeded deers are munching peaceful on the pool. He don't know how to stop it, without causing a stampede off his meadows.

(Sorry, I'm not able to watch the movie.)

I think that the idea is for some SMTs to use 'oracles' to provide identity verification. Only accounts which are approved by the oracles (which would be elected by SMT holders) would be able to vote to allocate the SMT rewards pool.

I'm not sure how long this will take to develop, but I find it quite a compelling approach to overcome some of the difficulties you present.

·

yes this is correct ) (and to boot, I’m going to publish the oracle docs once I’m back from this tour)

·
·

That's great news!

by the way @ned - I've noticed that @andrarchy and you are able to decline rewards on comments.

Does that mean you're using a different version of Steemit where the decline rewards is an option for comments?

·
·
·

It’s a new feature on the settings page of steemit

·
·
·
·

Ned. It’s alx.

·
·
·
·

I would like to have one talk with you, pretty desperately. There’s a hurry.

·
·
·
·

If Steemit is friendly enough, irrelevant of the long term future of the platform, I’ll reveal balls to the wall open sourcery here. I’ll SMT IdeaPoly and build a yuge community of “Inter Actors”.

Mister Delegation working with a team of Vision Aries, can assemble the needed team quick AF.

You can USE you STAKE.

You can do STEEMX.

F Hacking.

That’s not the top level of innovation in almost any venture. The highest level design is.

IMO.

Alx

·
·
·
·

Is this what you are talking about, mate?

NEW_SETTINGS_FEATURE.jpg

Too bad I've discovered this post too late to make a meaningful upvote. I agree that more needs to be done to align rewards and quality. I think your proposals make sense and are worth trying. Unlike bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, I don't see decentralization as the central dogma of Steemit. I think empowering quality content creators wherever they are on the globe is far more noble and important. And if it's decentralized, all the better but if it's not I don't see a big problem.

As you so well say, "sorry folks, that's how human society works". In only a few words, what took me a full article to argue, a few months ago ...

The best revolution in the community

This is indeed a revolution if Ned pulls it off. But will the witnesses and high stake account holders agree to this?

You are right. I have noticed that people upvote only posts with good reputation and also SP. Like you stated, posts being found on the trending page isn't worth it. Hard work don't pay any longer on steemit, one can easily post crap and get rewarded as long he/she knows the right people to upvote them or pay for excessive bidding bots.
@Ned should kindly look into this and may be help to sustain the steemit sphere.

We can always do our bit by upvoting quality post and take time to check our auto upvote trail is being used for unworthy posts and remove it. STEEM has a future but Ned needs to implore strategies to check these abuse

This is very informative @liberosist though i am still fresh to ths community and there are still a lot of things i need to absorb but i just have read a blog made by @steemitblog about the project hivemind, so i just want to ask if this is kinda connected to what ned was talking during that conference?

·

Hivemind is a layer on top of the Steem blockchain. However, what Ned discusses here is blockchain level protocols.

·
·

Oh well, i'll take it from here thanks @liberosist! Maybe just a few reads more. And as a minnow talking, the project is indeed amazing but i think the challenge there is to which communities are deserving to that delegation since there are a lot that have risen these days.

Thanks for the insight, it's was such a great change from the exponential rewards to the linear atleast for the new committed members who try to put out value to this platform.

Firstly, Ned clarifies that Steem's algorithm was designed to reward the best quality content the most, and that is still the intention. So it's reassuring to see that he still cares about quality of content.

However It will be important to note that quality content on steemit is rather subjective.
Hope we can find a way of rewarding highly for that quality content on this platform.
Right now it's still trick to just pull it off.

·

Quality is always subjective, but I'm sure no one will disagree that the current Trending page is garbage.

I would say that there's no one-size-fit-all algo that's able to please everyone. At the end, people being people, they will always find ways to exploit the system.

·

Source
Generic comments could be mistaken for spam.

More information:
The Art of Commenting
Comment Classifications

But you know what is worst? I have already seen a lot of interesting ideias being thrown around here (reduce vote value for votes on the same person, curator reputation, etc) but doesnt seem that steem inc. Care much about community ideas.

Before anything, steem inc really need to get their shit together with the community

The information is good I know that if your voting power is not strong then you may not be able to generate many steem another option is investing in Bots which I don't know how to use it

Thank you for this weeks golden snippet of information. It's things like this that you don't find in the whitepaper :)

While i cant current get my head around how account-based voting would work here with regards to SP becoming less useful, taking a route that negates the use of bid-bots and circle-jerks is certainly a good thing.

Steem will never be the same again. But this will solve all the problems. Should I cash out now? Ahah

I enjoyed reading that. Something I've been thinking about for a while is a way to spread votes out more fairly across a larger number of creators. Ignoring the bots etc, one of the main problems I see at the moment is circle voting. Rather than rewarding content, people are voting between themselves on whatever is published, ignoring the rest of the platform.

Perhaps there could be a way to reduce this by essentially making people spread their votes a little more. For example, a forum I used to use a long time ago utilised a reputation system that stopped circle voting. If you had given a user an upvote, you then could not upvote that person until you'd upvoted a certain number of other accounts too. You could perhaps even add a time restraint here.

Yes steemit is best ever i love steemit and also lot of love for your great posts 👍👍💓

takes a lot of time/work to present this and is appreciated

Legit analysis; i only hope that avenues would be made for people with low reputation and steem power who post quality contents

Two equally important issues that are not being addressed are Self votes, and multiple accounts from one user.
The only way to remedy this is to remove the ANON ability with new accounts and make every account be verified to be one person.
Then Steemit is just another version of facebook but worse.

Many original miners have many hundreds of accounts here already, they will have the biggest vote still. So in reality this will change nothing it will just make everyone scramble to open more accounts.
My .001 sbd worth.
I am powering down now and will just hold 15 sp from now on.

Iam steemit lover....Very nice post.I am fascinated by your post..Really bro,Iam like your steemit post

Good explanation but problem is that many blog writers fed up from steemit because Whales don't vote their blogs and they leave steemit it because of no reward given to them. mostly people even don't see their posts and their blogs earn zero. so please take a look on this issue.

👍👍👍

Steemit sayesinde, instagram ve facebook hepsini bıraktım

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvote this reply.

Your post is very great.
I feel very meaningful.

Interactive.
upvote and follow.

@liberosist sir very informative blog you post my dear friend I followed you stay blessed

Cheers Liberosist :)
Hope you are well!
Yeeow/

Indeed, vote based will be the way forward. The only problem is that I see accounts with thousands of followers but very little interaction.

Without interaction, there will be catastrophic consequences.

great valuable steem post. thanks for @liberosist

1 acount 1 vote (Maybe I understand it wrong, but does that mean "a one vote a day" kind of thing?) will kill al social media platforms.
Facebook would not work, Youtube, Reddit.
On Facebook I would like my friends and familie because I am intrested in what they do. Yeah some random viral thing might get a like. Sure a nice post on reddit get a vote, but that friend with his hilarious comments also gets votes.
On YouTube I would like more that 1 video.
Same with steem, other social media have the same problem: those with money are on top yeah sure maybe the early days you could rock it. But right now all social media is a big circle jerk, damnn life it self is a circle jerk dont believe me? Go tell your boss how you really feel about him, let see how long you last. Go tell a Police officer what you really think when he pulles you over and gives you that bogus ticket. Tell the jugde to go F himself. Politics is one person one vote, but its also one big circle jerk bulshit.
Going 1 vote 1 account has to be really well designed.
And then all that talk about "Quality content" 99% of the people aint going to produce any real content at all just memes, selfies, cats & dogs. People follow who they know and connect with in real life, they just dont produce quality content, how would a one vote one account work then? I am not allowed to like there selfie?
Social media = The people, and we are not all writers, acctors, musicians, comedians, some are house wifes, hard working dads, students, drug dealers and users, scammers and spammers, docters and patiënts.
You want social media on the blockchain you want them on the blockchain too!!
I agree about the lower rewards especially for abusers/spammers/scammers but the honest people/users, who may or may not produce quality content and the investors should not be hurt in the proces and it should not scare novice users and new users away, what is already happening with the need to produce quality content
Resteemed!!

Loading...

"Furthermore, I'd also suggest a decentralized judiciary system to deal with cases of abuse." - This part is huge. There needs to be a change but the decentralized, democratic-voting nature of the platform needs to remain.

Congratulations @liberosist! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Upvote this notification to help all Steemit users. Learn why here!

Comment removed

Change seems to be needed correct...i just hope that we could try different things out on different SMTs. Thus said, I would change the way Steem itself works at the last moment when we gather enough information from the individual SMTs and see what works the best and can maybe even find a consensual agreement.