Proposal: reduce Hive inflation by reducing curation rewards

in hive-102930 •  7 days ago 

Background on curation reward problems

The last major changes to the author/curation rewards were made as part of the Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP) changes. The most significant of these changes was a separate downvote mana pool (to allow downvoting that doesn’t economically hurt the downvoter) and a change from 75%/25% to 50%/50% in the rewards ratio paid to a post’s author versus its curators.

Both of these changes were primarily intended to discourage two practices that had become quite common: 1) buying votes for posts from bid-vote bots (these were bots that you could pay to vote for your posts) and 2) self-voting of near content-less posts. Overall, the changes were pretty effective, so much so that vote bots pretty much went out of business.

I think it’s fair to say that curation quality did improve as a result of the EIP. The trending page has better articles and downvoting has curbed a lot of the worst abuses of “bad” whales upvoting crap posts for the author rewards.

But I also think most people would agree that we’re still far from an ideal system for rewarding posts.

The rise of auto-vote bots

The biggest problem I observe nowadays is the rise of auto-vote bots (bots that you give permission to vote for your account). These have existed for a long time, of course, but a lot of the funds that previously were invested in bid-vote bots have moved to auto-vote bots. The problem with this is that auto-vote bots are generally programmed to vote for a set of “known good” authors, instead of voting based on the contents of individual posts. So the judgement of post quality is far from ideal.

If automatic voting is bad for the network, why do large stakeholders do it?

Stakeholders allocate their funds to these bots because they want to receive curation rewards, but they don’t want to spend the time to curate. This might just sound lazy, but it’s more complicated than that.
Curation actually is very time-intensive. So intensive, the rewards just aren’t great enough to pay for the time, so the true manual curator usually does so for other reasons than the rewards. So, if you’re a large stakeholder that wants to hold the token, but doesn’t want to curate, you have four choices: 1) sign up with an auto-vote bot and collect your curation rewards (somewhere between 8-12% APR), 2) randomly curate 10 posts a day and risk those posts getting downvoted for bad curation (losing the curation rewards), 3) devote hours a day to reading many articles and curating manually, and 4) don’t vote and fall behind in Hive ownership versus other stakeholders in the first 3 groups.

Now, while it seems fair that people in group 3 should earn more than people in group 4 (after all people in group two are providing useful work to the blockchain), I think it’s clear that people in group 1 and group 2 shouldn’t earn more than people in group 4. I believe a lot of large stakeholders go through this same thought process, and if they care about an 8% return but don’t have time to curate 10 posts a day, then they decide the only reasonable option is to join an auto-vote bot.

Solution 1: pay manual curators like it’s a job

The problem with this solution is that it is just too expensive. At least right now, it takes most people too long to find a bunch of posts they like. And while large stakeholders get paid more for the same effort and should therefore be more incentivized to curate, they also usually end up being people who are already highly compensated for their time elsewhere (this tends to be just the nature of capitalist systems).

Solution 2: make it easier to find good posts

This is certainly a worthy cause, and we should invest effort in creating better tools for finding good content with less effort. But I don’t see this as a silver bullet solution to this problem right now.

Solution 3: lower curation rewards?!?

After thinking about this for a while, I believe this is probably the simplest near-term solution to the economic problem that is currently pushing curators to use auto-vote bots.

Most stakeholders know that auto-vote bots aren’t great for Hive as a whole. But it’s a form of tragedy-of-the-commons, where each stakeholder who doesn’t join in the auto-vote game loses out against those who do.

To break this negative economic incentive, I propose we lower curation rewards to the point where the potential gain from curation is too small to make it worth the negatives associated with using an auto-vote bot. This will bring the situation back to one where stakeholders who don’t want to spend time curating, but don’t want to lose out on curation rewards, don’t need to worry about this issue any more, because the relative loss between the two choices is small. This could even incentivize new stakeholders who previously have decided to pass on Hive or only maintain a small investment, because they didn’t want to play the curation game.

A side benefit: Solution 3 also lowers overall blockchain inflation

The Hive blockchain currently has an inflation rate of 8.5%, which decreases 0.5% each year (don’t quote me, as maybe it already dropped to 8%, I don’t know exactly when the change occurs). My back-of-the-envelope calculation leads me to believe that overall inflation will drop to about 6.5% if we reduce curation rewards by 75%.

Could this cause the return of bid-vote bots?

One potential concern, of course, is that this change could lead to a return of bid-vote bots and self-voted content-less posts. But the primary disincentives for these behaviors continue to exist from the EIP changes: 1) author rewards were reduced and 2) downvoting such posts became economically net-neutral to the downvoter. So I believe that a reduction of curation rewards won’t result in a return of these behaviors.

Will this reduce incentive to stake Hive?

Yes, I think this change will lower the incentive to stake Hive. The current high APR on curation rewards does act as a strong incentive to powerup Hive. So lowering the curation rewards will certainly lower the incentive to power up. But at the same time, it could act as incentive to hold Hive as a whole, since the more nervous investor can keep his holdings liquid without losing out as much economically versus powered-up stakeholders.

And there will still be good reasons for people to power up their Hive: the ability to influence Hive governance and the reduced inflation impact on powered up Hive (inflation paid to VESTS).

Other consequences: expect less votes

Another aspect of this change is a likely decrease in the number of votes cast for posts. My best guess is that the majority of votes are currently cast by auto-vote bots. So we can expect the number of votes cast to drop quite dramatically with such a change, and to someone who wants to inflate activity metrics, this may be considered a negative.

But I don’t think we should focus on false forms of activity of this sort. Too many blockchains play these kinds of games, but I hope that here on Hive, our focus is on providing useful services for our network participants, not gaming metrics to distort reality.

OK, if you’re still with me on this, how much lower should curation rewards be?

It’s a difficult question to answer, because the answer revolves around human behavior.

Obviously, we could simply drop curation rewards entirely, and I think it’s fairly clear that auto-vote bots would quickly go out of style. Another plus of this approach is that it would also eliminate the need for the blockchain to compute and report curation rewards. On the other hand, this would eliminate one of the few current gamification aspects of the blockchain (competition for curation rewards).

My initial thought is we should cut curation rewards to about ¼ of their current amount. This would bring the reward down to 1-3% APR for most curators. I suspect this would be enough to encourage stakeholders to look at the big picture, and stop delegating their votes to vote bots, allowing manual curation to dominate.

Feedback wanted

All of the above is an attempt to analyze and predict human behavior. That means it’s easily subject to error. I’m not certain that the proposed change will work as intended, it’s just my current opinion on a simple solution to the auto-vote problem. So I’m not wedded to this idea, and I am open to other solutions, as long as they don’t involve a lot of programming work (unless someone else wants to code it cheaply).

In the same vein, I’m OK to leave things as-is, if most stakeholders think that the issue I’m raising isn’t a problem worth worrying about. But all feedback is welcome, as I think it’s an issue at least worth discussing. If there seems to be enough interest in this approach, I can create a pair of proposals to more accurately measure stakeholder opinion about it.

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:  

I propose we lower curation rewards to the point where the potential gain from curation is too small to make it worth the negatives associated with using an auto-vote bot

The issue here is that to a large stakeholder there are virtually no negatives to using an auto-vote bot. It's completely free, takes all of a couple minutes to set up, and you sit back and collect the rewards. So if the curation rewards are anything at all, it will still be worthwhile to use auto-vote bots. So, primarily for this reason, I don't think reducing curation rewards will have the intended effect and wouldn't support that change.

Another option I have been thinking about (which is more work) is to allow people to opt out of the voting game and just earn a straight return on their HP. So we divert a portion of the current reward pool to this new HP staking reward fund or whatever it's called, and people can opt into that if they want, and if they do then they cannot use their stake to vote on content.

The returns from this would depend on how much HP opts in to receive the straight staking rewards, since it would be splitting up a finite reward pool between all of the stake opted in. On the other end, users who choose to keep their HP voting will see their vote values per HP increase significantly due to a large amount of HP no longer participating in the voting/reward pool. So users will arbitrage both sides until the system hopefully comes to an equilibrium.

Basically, the system allows the HP holders to collectively determine the best APR on staked HIVE vs vote value in a free market type system.

At the end of the day, I think all this boils down to whether people think auto-voting is good, bad or neutral. From comments so far, seems like not many people mind it, and some like that it encourages staking versus holding liquid Hive. I don't really like auto-voting, but there's certainly other issues I'm more interested in dealing with, so I think I'm just going to table this proposal, since it seems to fall into the category where fear of the unknown outweighs the view that there's potential for improvement.

I would really like to look into how we can make things fairer for the small vote counts. If I am correct, vote counts under $5.00 are penalized in that the amount rewarded is less than the theoretical value of the upvote given, and that the opposite occurs on vote counts above that threshold.

  • That obviously encourages "piling on" the larger vote counts, and also clearly opens the door for the famous curation trails.
  • It discourages voting for less recognized content (it could be great content in the curator's eyes, but not widely seen).
  • Most importantly, it discourages the upvoting of comments since by nature their vote count is almost always less than $5.00.

In my view, upvoting comments is at least half of what a social media should do.

I notice a clear lack of upvoting on comments, and I think it is attributable to the fact that you get less reward than you would if you just looked for something crossing the $5.00 mark, regardless of whether it's good or not. (As people know, I vote comments anyway, because I think they are extremely important - engagement is one of the keys to success and it needs to be rewarded - all the well knowing that I'm actually hurting my ROI.)

Comments would also be more difficult to create curation trails for, I would think, if not impossible, thus dealing effectively with part of the issue.

If we were to go one step further and reverse the reward growth as the count grows on the larger vote counts, that would also further thwart the curation trails, again, I would think.

The long and the short of this would be not the elimination of curations trails, but a reduction in their profitability - meaning that they would still be an option for those who don't have the time. However, those who do have the time would have much more incentive to manually curate.

I think offering an opt-out staking option would completely defeat what HIVE is meant to be. Everybody would opt-out (except for a handful of diehards) and we'd be just one more staking cryptocurrency among hundreds.

For more than one reason, the most important being to foster community, but in this case to combat autovoting, I think the best way to address the issue is a dual approach that makes the small vote counts fairer while throttling down the rewards of the larger vote counts at the same time.

To be honest nobody is giving meaningful upvotes for comments anymore and in turn few people comment in comparison to the " good old days" which is very sad for the evolution of a social platform

I do but to be honest, I hate social media. #HIVE is more than any other pile of crap #mssm Mainstream Social Media to me and always will be. I like not being censored, hacked, spammed, targeted by bots, flooded with advertisements or having my content disappear/ be deleted. Most users of mainstream social media don't seem to care about any of those things...

I find it hard to "engage" digitally with users here as much as I once did on STEEM for many reasons, but those reasons don't relate to upvotes, HIVE income or curating rewards. My lack of engagement is my problem and something I'm still trying to change my online routines around.... But to see an immutable blockchain platform try to gear itself towards capturing market share away from Squitter, FuckBook, PooTube, DikDok is such a limiting way of looking at it all.

I know for a lot of #hive users, this is really important stuff. Growth in their 'investment' can be the priority reason for them bothering to post or upvote anything here and they want to see more and more users migrate here (or at least integrate #hive into their daily social media addictions). I just don't see it the same way.

The value is in the content on here, the drawcard is the technical superiority of the hive blockchain tech itself and the tenacity to commit to engagement here is what I see the major struggle as.

I appreciate very much what you are doing for HIVE @blocktrades. Regarding the topic of this post, I understand perfectly the inflation and reducing it can be a good thing if done well.
However I am worried about the incentives of Holding HIVE and powering up, some solution like the one described by @yabapmatt seems better for me.

A lot of blockchains are marketing the STAKING REWARDS better than us.
A system for staking and receiving rewards (higher than what we receive now for powering up), could work for people who do not want to vote 10 times a day.

Yes, it's just more work, and I think its not much different, except it encourages staking just to receive rewards. Some people think that is a good thing, some don't. I'm not a huge fan of staking just as a gimmic to create scarcity, but I do think it does have usefulness for governance, as it tends to ensure governance is managed by long term versus short term thinking.

Isn't it ironic how 'staking' aka vesting was a fresh, new concept on STEEM and HIVE all those years ago and now it's absolutely everywhere in the crypto world.

Well the thing is you, and I've heard plenty others say it's "bad", but I never really hear why it's so bad. I honestly think it's a positive. The reality is as you said, curation is hugely time consuming, and there's a ton of stake that wants to participate, but doesn't have the time to manually curate. What is the actual material damage of this that you see?

I think things like curation trails saved Steem from dying for a long time, and I feel like it's still a similar situation here.

I think what we need most desperately right now is still more users and I don't think this will move us closer to that. I think it would have the opposite effect.

We're not talking about curation trails. Those are arguably still manually curated, because someone is reading the posts before voting, hopefully.

The "bad" auto-voters are the ones that just vote around 5 minutes on posts by a specific set of authors that are expected to generate content that won't get downvoted. It's bad because no one is judging the contents of the article in that case. Right now, variations of this type of bot are probably the most economically rewarding.

Another option I have been thinking about (which is more work) is to allow people to opt out of the voting game and just earn a straight return on their HP. So we divert a portion of the current reward pool to this new HP staking reward fund or whatever it's called, and people can opt into that if they want, and if they do then they cannot use their stake to vote on content.

I think this amounts to the same thing economically as the proposal, but maybe it appears better on paper, because people don't perceive the inflation loss. I guess one difference is that the method you're suggesting still incentivizes staking versus just holding, if that's an objective. And you can "tweak" things more if you have a variable percentage, rather than just an outright reduction in inflation.

Allocate the inflation to the bank accounts. Give people ROI on the bank accounts. On top of this, Use the bank accounts for collateral in DeFi loans for creating HBD. Curation can be eliminated entirely it makes zero sense. People who want ROI will move to the bank accounts and everyone else that wants social media Hive Fives will stick with the reward pool.

We hope people listen to you!

The inflation to bank accounts is what matt is proposing, I think. It's been discussed as an option for a while.

The big question is whether a smaller reward for saving versus a higher reward for the near "zero cost" activity of allocating it to an auto-vote bot. Now this could make economic sense if downvoting or early voting started bringing the two options into balance for people who curate via an auto-vote bot.

Loading...

Agree with this suggestion. Reduce inflation and divide inflations rewards as u suggest.

I've quite similar impression @yabapmatt

I found it hard to imagine how reducing curation rewards would stop all those users who are using auto-upvote bots from using them.

I'm also afraid, that many stakeholders will not only see value of received tokens dropping, but also APR dropping. Which may prompt them to exit their investments in HIVE tokens.

Wouldn't you think, that perhaps removing non-linear reward curve would reduce auto-upvotes in current form?

Yours, Piotr

I feel if we drastically reduce curation we are going to eliminate any incentive to power up. The majority of users already power down and sell as fast as they earn it. Very few will lock up any significant amount to just vote witnesses and proposals.

You are trying to encourage manual curation, but this would reduce the incentive to do it. To manually curate with any decent amount of stake is literally a full time job unless you just drop large votes on anything half decent you see.

No matter how altruistic you are, it's very difficult to justify spending 4-12 hours a day reading and voting content you likely have zero interest in the first place. That's how long it would take to manually curate with a sizable stake.

Reducing or removing curation will encourage those with stake (or access to it via circle jerks) to create more shit content to take more of the author side. One of the reasons there is a significant reduction of spam and abuse is curation is more viable compared to shit post farms and you can be competitive without voting on your friends or your alts. I find a lot of people underestimate the value stake holders bring to the ecosystem. While creating content is time consuming, earning and buying stake is as well and not as easily doable by most users.

In another comment you mention this:

It's not really changing the incentives to invest in Hive. It's changing voting incentives. The amount of lost curation rewards is exactly balanced by the reduced inflation.

I don't think anyone outside of Hive really cares about voting incentives, and those are the people we need to encourage to invest in Hive. I do believe reducing inflation is valuable, and it is something that outsiders care about. I've suggested in the past we cut the reward pool in half until we can acquire more users. I think targeting curation only would drastically reduce any incentive to power up. In fact, as someone who has powered up since I have been here, I would struggle to justify it myself if curation was made to be pointless. Curation is already soul sucking, you are damned if you don't vote someone, you are damned if you do vote someone, you are damned if you downvote someone, you are damned if you don't. Not only that it takes an enormous amount of time, more so than any other crypto project I know of to just "keep up with the Joneses". The problem is made worse when you see garbage rewarded extremely well for little effort on a regular basis. Many stake holders will likely feel they are losing their percentage share unless they also become an author, and let's be honest most people here are not authors, so they will turn to easy solutions.

Let me turn this bus around and get back to the root of the problem.

auto voting is bad.

I disagree, I think shitty auto voting is bad. I mostly see myself supporting people who create good content and put in effort. I maintain an eye on these people I support and adjust accordingly. I also give significant votes to everyone I vote, $4-5 typically. Here is the real problem that I have brought up before. The majority of auto votes give a few cents, their vote is only there for curation rewards and nothing else. This is the bulk of the auto votes you see, these votes have zero concern about quality and effort and are purely for curation rewards. This is the real problem in my opinion. This also results in clumping where popular authors get the majority of the votes. This is also the result of very limited pool of "good" authors to vote.

The other problem is very few are downvoting to counter the shitty voting that goes on, which would be a balance to keep the auto voting in check.

I just dropped you a 100% upvote because, 1) you deserve it, and 2) that is how I manage to distribute my daily 20% recharge. I don't have but a couple of hours a day to dedicate to HIVE, so I give 100% upvotes on posts, and 50% on comments (with exceptions, like yours). I think it's also more appreciated on the receiving end too.

But get this: half of my votes usually go to comments, none of which ever reach $5.00. That's a huge disincentive to upvote comments (which should be just the opposite since comments are the life blood of a community - as you said, the vast majority will never be successful content creators). As incredible as it may seem, the opposite happens with posts receiving more than $5.00 of upvotes: we get unwanted curation trails as everyone piles on (sometimes piling on to what very well may not be exactly what we would call quality content).

In short, I'm rewarding your comment as I think it deserves, following what comes naturally, like we do everywhere else, IN SPITE OF BEING PENALIZED FOR IT (both of us).

That is what I believe needs to be fixed, and, not so ironically, I think that, by and large, by doing that, the curation trail issue would also be fixed in the process.

!ENGAGE 50

The majority of auto votes give a few cents, their vote is only there for curation rewards and nothing else. This is the bulk of the auto votes you see, these votes have zero concern about quality and effort and are purely for curation rewards.

This is the problem, this is what needs to be addressed not so much changing once again the reward pool system. If auto vote trail following required a minimum value then this would solve the entire issue. Start with a minimum of $0.750 value per vote, if a minnow account an alt account or a low HP account wants to follow with a zero value vote to bad they should be voting manually.

This will be the first Hard Fork for Hive, I for one am glad it is not Adjusting the vote/reward pool. It will also be the first HF I have seen since 2017 that did not include changing the reward pool/vote system.

I don't know if code can be written to limit vote trails/auto voting, but if it can it should be looked into.

Very limited is not the best words to use there. I know of at least two dozen, off of the top of my head, that refuse to post anything substantially qualified as 'quality' (which is also subjective to the eye of the beholder), simply because their posts consistently got overlooked and were never curated 'properly' as they should have been. It still happens. I used to write massive stories that took hours to compose between gathering proper graphics and making it 'pretty'. Sure a few reached 100+ dollars - but only because of bidbots. Not a single actual whale vote aside from grumpycat who thought I made too much on it. I recently wrote a story on my first fish, I thought it deserved at least 15$ but nope. Nothing. 6 minute read with over 1000 words.

Which, is a whole other ballgame there. There is a post right now on trending from @krnel that is twice as good in my mind (pun intended) as the one written by @acidyo about @ocd. Krnel's is worth half as much. The one from Krnel is also a shorter read than my fish story. What gets the most attention around here seems to mostly pertain to the blockchain and actual content creators, don't get near the credit they deserve. The 'whales' would rather just support the 'whales' so they can remain the 'whales'. Not all, but most. Voting habits and the blockchain doesn't lie. Some even sit at 100% VP/Mana for days until one of their 'whale' friends makes a post. And we won't even get into the biases from 'communities' and the separation that bred into the system.

Shitty auto-voting is bad, but I use it. Not necessarily for the curation, but to offer steady support because like you, I can't be here 12 hours a day. I am in agreement with you though (once again - kind of an odd thing, but hey, it's been happening more frequently the past few months), reducing the curation rewards is not the answer. The actual content creating community, all inclusive of Hive, was already pretty upset when it went to 50/50 and so many had to adapt. You take that away again and as you say, we will be hard pressed to attract any investors or even users, for that matter.

Very limited is not the best words to use there

I still stand by my words, even if every author was a "good author", we still have very few.

simply because their posts consistently got overlooked and were never curated 'properly' as they should have been

Really you mean as they feel it should have been. There is no "should have been" here. I've seen a duct tape meme get voted $943, and good posts make less than $1. You have to put in the work in any social media before you build an audience. That involves posting and engaging consistently. Social media is hard, yet Hive is still far easier than any I have seen do to the lack of competition, but it is far from fair.

Some even sit at 100% VP/Mana for days until one of their 'whale' friends makes a post.

The first half of this statement is a gift to the community, the second half is depressing.

The 'whales' would rather just support the 'whales' so they can remain the 'whales'. Sure a few reached 100+ dollars - but only because of bidbots. Not a single actual whale vote aside from grumpycat who thought I made too much on it.

I disagree, I don't do this, and most of the whales I know don't do this. There are not many of us. It isn't usually whales doing this, it's dolphins and orcas. A lot of the whales are in fact spreading their votes very thin to optimize curation or voting a group of favored authors (potentially friends). I don't see the behavior you describe often at the whale level.

I used to write massive stories that took hours to compose between gathering proper graphics and making it 'pretty'.

This is a systemic problem on Hive, people think because they do something they are owed something. Unless you have a contract, then it is up to the community to decide what it is worth. But I will agree 100% there is no consistency in voting based on quality here. This is a result of decentralization, favoritism, ulterior motives, and just poor content discovery options. EIP has done wonders for helping in this department, many more stakeholders are voting outside of their circles. It isn't perfect but the end result has been a vast improvement over Old Steem. No change we make will ever get us to where we want to be, but if we can get closer that is an improvement.

Not claiming to be entitled, but I did go to college for English Journalism. So, I can actually deem myself a decent judge as to what quality should be. It's not what you know or how much heart and soul you put into a post here. It's who you know. Simple as that, and the same goes for any centralized system as well. I've seen crapass posts worth well beyond their limits too. My point is, many a good and often a great thing gets overlooked. Which is one reason I feel auto-votes are a good thing. Take @snook, for example. She likes to make people smile, and that's one of the reasons I love her. She is in my autovoter because I don't care if she posts a video, 3 sentences or three chapters. I'm supporting HER. I know her. And maybe a few days later, I might have enough time to comment my thoughts on her post. Maybe it's 8 days later and I missed the deadline to even give her a vote! Or wait, no I didn't, she's on auto - man I love those things.

many a good and often a great thing gets overlooked.

I agree, and I'll quote my parent comment.

"This is a result of decentralization, favoritism, ulterior motives, and just poor content discovery options."

I'm supporting HER.

My original comment brings this up as well, I do the same thing. I use votes to support people, not always specific pieces of content. I like to support authors I believe that are creating good content and /or putting in effort. If I see something that stands out, I vote that as well. An important thing if you use votes to "support people" is reviewing those votes and those people as people tend to change when given automatic votes.

I do regularly just like you. I have my personal options and my community ones. Some are similar. But I'd say only half of, maybe less, haven't actually counted, of my votes are auto. Most of my personal is manual. I don't care if I get down in the 60% range, it's not just about the curation for me. Retaining users is a struggle itself. We wouldn't be much without them.

My point is, many a good and often a great thing gets overlooked. Which is one reason I feel auto-votes are a good thing.

I think they are a bad thing, because they make people too lazy to discover new posts or also honor efforts of former 'bad' authors to improve or just unknown writers.

It's easy to upvote 'good' authors automatically all the time but difficult real, hard work to find great posts.

  ·  6 days ago (edited)

People don't want to discovery "new posts" because it's a lot easier to farm on defi and do nothing, earning 10-20x yield returns even if it does collapse.

The Auto Voting is a serious problem if you want a social unicorn. On the flip side, poor returns from APR yields is a serious problem if you want a blockchain unicorn. It's not to say by any means you need any APR, or staking for that matter, it's just for this comparison since rewarding is still in plans along with inflation.

It needs to to go strongly in one direction or the other. Currently all the mechanics are in the middle.

New Investors:

And it's important to get new investors unfortunately, because that's how the entire mechanics work for any asset class, stock or crypto for that matter.

We need to support more experimenting like @blocktrades proposal and attempt more radical changes(a bit less focusing on "finding the sweet spots"). More extremes imho.

Not sure that's true either. My feed is full of them. I wouldn't follow someone if I didn't think they didn't do good work. What would be the point in following a terrible author?

I don't like the concept of 'good' authors, I prefer the idea of upvoting good posts! :)

Upvoting 'good' authors automatically means being too lazy to read and evaluate posts, means allwoing 'good' authors to be lazy too, as they receive upvotes independently from the quality of their posts, means not giving 'bad' authors the incentive to improve and have the chance of receiving upvotes when writing better posts than before, means to keep ignoring new, unknown users which leave the platform as fast as they came, because nobody makes the effort to seek for posts manually.

I see not a single reason why I should get less curation rewards when manually upvoting a two days old post which I had really read and evaluated than someone who didn't work at all but just let a programm do the job!

You may read more about my point of view here, here and here.

auto voting is bad.
I disagree, I think shitty auto voting is bad

@themarkymark please don't take this as an attack on you (I almost wrote auto attack xD).. But, I believe that auto voting on 4th minute with a stake large like yours is a bit shitty auto voting. It doesn't give time for manual curators to even read a post and possibly engage with author.

I am saying this because curation rewards are only incentive for manual curator, with other emotional advantages. So it would be good not to take that away from them (us).

I am saying this to you because I often see your votes when I am manually curating and I hope that you will give it a consideration to change it a bit.

By saying this, I also appreciate you voting on some small authors that are creating good content. So once again, I am not attacking u nor saying you need to change your thing.

I am just hoping you will consider what I said here.

Thanks.

Honestly, auto voting is not too bad. It gives the simplicity to users or stakeholder who does not have time to curate and that is why there is a downvote option use for, to downvote the bad content or post.

My earnings:
Hive : 216,009 HP - Last 30 Days: 2,049.20 HP / $352.27
Steem: 172,800 SP - Last 30 Days: 4,954.97 SP / $841.98

Anyone with brain will leave this blockchain after 75% cut on curation

Anyone with a brain could figure out that a difference like that can only exist right now if fewer people are reaping those rewards, given the rewards systems are the same currently. That tends to point to a serious long term problem for Steem.

Steemians: "We centralized the chain, now we'll centralize distribution"

:-)

That's true, this is why I'm slowly powering down SP and converting earnings to HP but if proposal like this one gets funded it won't make any sense to me or any other investor

I get the feeling that there's no need to worry about it. I think too many people share your fear to try the experiment.

What I don't like about automatic voting is the abuse of the curve by programming to 5 minutes without giving time to manual curators. Eliminating the healing curve would be beneficial.

Another abuse of the automatic votes is when you use 100% of them and nothing to manual curation. The same group of authors will always be voted on, excluding others, and this discourages new users.

The solutions for many whales can be to get into a manual curation trail as you do with @cervantes and what you could do with others as @rutablockchain 😝

Now seriously, speaking of solutions. In the Whaleshares blockchain they did not have automatic votes, somehow they were not in the code, although I am not in favor of such a drastic solution. They also implemented (I think it would be at a frontend level) that to vote a post you had to open it and you couldn't directly from the feed.

@theycallmedan provided a solution to this and "delegated" their vote to several community leaders among whom I am, only following the vote of a new account with a fixed percentage. He relieved himself of curation and made it more decentralized, distributing that vote in several communities but keeping his stake for when he wants to vote. We as curators do this to help the community.

The whales must be integrated into the communities, so there are many ways to encourage manual curation.

Any proposal that goes through eliminating curation rewards will make it stop curation and as a consequence a stampede and abandonment of users. It is the content creators themselves who are bringing more people to HIVE, I don't see the whales in that. If there is only a ROI for maintaining HIVE, most of the community will leave and this project will no longer make sense.

What makes HIVE different from another blockchain where you earn ROI, is that here you can transform lives of people who express their talents, if you change that you destroy the magic

I've grown to dislike the 5min window. I've talked about this for awhile. It screws manual curators and makes most flee to auto bots so they can earn better curation rewards voting before manual curators. I would like to see a flat change here. When I have time today I'll jot down a few more ideas.

  ·  7 days ago (edited)

What I don't like about automatic voting is the abuse of the curve by programming to 5 minutes without giving time to manual curators. Eliminating the healing curve would be beneficial.

This seems like a simple solution to reduce auto-voting and give those seeking and rewarding content based on its perceived worth (and not the authors previous efforts) a fair share. If the CR was paid out purely based on stake voted, a % could be set aside and burnt?

One issue with doing flat rewards, even for a time, instead of the curve is that it opens up a new form of auto-voting. For example, if the rewards are proportional to stake for the first hour, then large stackholders can have bots watch which posts are getting first hour votes and pile in. The curves encourage voting before others, but not voting too early. Perhaps the early-voting-penalty time could be extended, and front-ends could build ways to delay manual votes for their users.

It's good to know that community leader see the problem, trying to find the solution and asking for opinion (that's how I read your proposal). I bet we will have to get back to the discussion after the hardfork. There are many ideas in comments how to improve the system, here is mine:

  • anonymous downvotes
  • increase the downvote mana to 100% of upvote mana (both with same rebuilding rate)
  • after every downvote burn tokens instead of sending them back to reward pool

I also think that anonymous downvotes would be helpful. But while it may be possible to do it, there's no obvious way to do so. I will give it some thought though, since I need to solve a related problem for the reputation/rating system I want to develop: I want there to be a way for people to report negative ratings without being the potential subject of retaliation. I do have some preliminary ideas along those lines, but I'm not sure how easily they can be translated to Hive's reward system.

I agree, reputation system needs to be replaced. Waiting for your ideas and post. The simplest/temporary fix would be the current system which will calculate account activity just for the latest 30 days

I think anonymous downvotes would dramatically improve this system. The reason auto curation on crap can happen is because non-whale users are never going to downvote a post that will harm some whale. If downvotes were anonymous curation could actually work the way it should, in both directions.

Steem is a shit show with a paragraph and image making $200+. If I had stake there and wanted curation rewards it would be a cake walk. I would trust anything there to have powered up between them potentially stealing it to the price going to zero when Justin Sun dumps his bags.

actually "bad curation" isn't as bad as it would seem:

https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@tobetada/how-bad-is-bad-curation

I feel if we drastically reduce curation we are going to eliminate any incentive to power up. The majority of users already power down and sell as fast as they earn it. Very few will lock up any significant amount to just vote witnesses and proposals.

I don't think it eliminates any incentive to power up, although I agree it reduces it. It would probably make sense to reduce the powerdown time to 30 days at the same time as a counter-incentive.

But what I don't agree with is that "disincentivizing staking" = incentivizing selling. Staking just to create scarcity is just playing a game with people's heads, IMO.

I disagree, I think shitty auto voting is bad.

I agree with that. I just haven't seen a solution that just eliminates bad auto-voting.

The other problem is very few are downvoting to counter the shitty voting that goes on, which would be a balance to keep the auto voting in check.

I've also yet to see a decent proposal for how to make downvoting work well socially, unfortunately.

But what I don't agree with is that "disincentivizing staking" = incentivizing selling. Staking just to create scarcity is just playing a game with people's heads, IMO.

That's not what I meant but I can see how you got that as I put two thoughts together. My point is we have a large portion of users powering down on a regular basis and selling. Many see Hive as a weekly paycheck, and some depend on it as such.

My point wasn't that it would incentive it, just that it is an existing condition. If there is less incentive to power up (or even just not power down), it will likely happen less.

My point wasn't that it would incentive it, just that it is an existing condition. If there is less incentive to power up (or even just not power down), it will likely happen less.

I'm not sure that's two different things. I feel like it's the same thing, just expressed two different ways. But maybe I'm still missing something.

The only way to eliminate auto voting is to reduce curation rewards if you constantly vote on the same author. For instance, you could add a curation multiplier (0-1) that is associated with time. If you haven't voted on an author for say 5 days your curation is multiplied by 1. If you have voted on the same author 10 times that day your multiplier is 0. The difference is burned or donated to the HPS.

Does that make sense? It overly complicated things, but gives you the voting behavior you are looking for. Although vote bots could be setup to get around that. That is always the case.

A sybil attack (voting with a rotating set of accounts) would be the easiest way to overcome this. So given the added complexity to implement the algorithm initially, and the relative ease of beating it, it's probably not worth doing. Plus it would incentivize a form of "bad" behavior (the sybil attack).

Agreed. I didn’t come to that conclusion until I was mostly done brainstorming the idea though :)

Split the stake between multiple accounts and factor in the curation (loss) multiplier when considering votes.
It would discourage large stakes from frequently dolloping large votes in the same place so they'll at least have to cast their net wider.

Thank you for your engagement on this post, you have recieved ENGAGE tokens.

YES, all of this ^

I agree with this; autovoting is not the problem, shit autovoting is bad. While there is any incentive at all to autovote over manual vote people will do it. The key here is to align interests. TBH the 5 minute window has a lot to do with the way things are now. If we removed that, and let downvotes do their thing then we are getting closer. I would love to see the view of @theycallmedan on this. Hive is new; lets not meddle with to many things at once while the market is still getting confidence with us.

Supporting the quality content should be a mandatory, the content that brings real value to the Hive.Blog or Peakd. The content should be the case why people really wanna read it. It's MEDIUM kinda content when readers really pay for reading that.

It's not about writing some code posts about HF updates (example) that lots of top 20 whales do, receiving huge rewards... that should be at least burned cuz most of them HDFunded, when social people see this, they also see a huge abyss between them, this could be discourageous.

Curators should be payed for curating - maybe. Good quality content creators need to be sure that their content will be needed and supported.

I really liked the idea written under the Solution 2, but in the direction of proof of verification ... it's like minting the NFT on the HE - you have to pay 4 that! Why not give the people some kind of the permission to post to the top topic communities which are going to represent Hive quality posts on the main page of HiveBlog or Peakd for burning some Hive? Starting from 5 Hive per post will stop people from shitposting - mining and make em feel more serious about what they are doing.

Regards

!BEER

I support you!🐝

Thanks!

I like it!

+++

Если бы я выбирал куда вложить свои активы между HIVE и STEEM, не имеяя опыта, что я имею. Мне, как инвестору было бы намного приятнее получать 50% кураторских вознаграждаений и меть возможность вывести в ликвидные средства свой стейк за 4 а не за 13 недель.

Думаю, эти изменения могут сделать STEEM более привлекательным местом для инвестиций нежели HIVE. Считаю любое изменения кураторских вознаграждей абсолюно АЛОГИЧЕСКИМ ВАРИАНТОМ.

I completely agree with this comment. Also I think that HIVE token needs to adopt stuff that make LEO token popular, for example ads and token burning.
!BEER


Hey @rollie1212, here is a little bit of BEER from @stranger27 for you. Enjoy it!

Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your BEER.

I am open to other solutions ...

My idea is a linear curation rewards curve where it wouldn't matter when you vote and how many other users voted on (or are expected to upvote) a post (which would also remove the five minutes 'curation window'...).
I know there is the myth of the manual curator who spots quality content first and then benefits of all the upvotes to follow. However, in reality the big majority of early upvotes are automated whereas real manual curators get the smallest piece of the cake. I see not a single reason why I should get less curation rewards when manually upvoting a two days old post which I had really read and evaluated than someone who didn't work at all but just let a programm do the job!

I explained my idea more extensively here (where I had to defend it in the comment section). :)

To balance the disadvantage that self-voting (because of the higher, linear curation rewards) would be somewhat more profitable again, I think the author rewards curve could stay convergent linear, and in addition one moght think about going back to something like 75 % author rewards and 25 % curations rewrds.
However, with 'free' flags since EIP I am not sure if that would be necessary at all.

I support what @jaki01 says in his comment 100%

Holy crap!! Finally someone who exposes the main problem coherently really putting his finger on the true sore.

yes flat 50% and remove that 2-4 minute advantage in efficiency.

I think Hive should be as easy as possible.

Content consumers hand over millions of dollars annually to content creators on platforms like Youtube, Twitch, etc.

All of these other platforms take a percentage of that money. If a consumer hands over $5, the creator doesn't get $5. Both the consumer and the creators lose money.

Here we have a platform where the consumer can spend the same amount of money, get a return, have their money back if they decide supporting creators isn't for them anymore; the creators get paid and the more they earn, the better their content becomes. The percentage that normally goes to the platform stays in the hands of creators and consumers. That helps guarantee a future. It's much like consumers are investing in both their favorite creators and ensuring those creators have a platform well into the future rather than being demonitized, banned, or shadowbanned. Consumers get paid to be entertained, get a return on their investment, and help ensure their favorites always have a venue.

Everywhere else on the internet when money is involved the consumers and creators all get screwed and have absolutely no say in business matters. Consumers and creators form a partnership but a middleman steps in, takes a percentage, calls the shots; in every case where someone got screwed over, nobody was happy. The creator no longer has a venue and the consumers are out all that money.

Hive is far more than just some run of the mill cryptocurrency project. It has the potential to appeal to millions of people. It has the potential to attract millions of dollars out of the pockets of regular folks who are not interested in crypto, but spend the money anyway.

Moving the goalposts because not many have figured out this potential or a way to sell the idea in order to attract the existing market; it's all a terrible idea. I've spent many years watching many overlook the true potential of a platform like this. There's not much interest in crypto, unfortunately. Shrinking the potential market so it only caters to a handful of people who might be interested in earning interest, for nothing, would be a step in the wrong direction.

If Hive wants to cater to those types, simply remove the interest from holding HP. Let people earn more for powering up and curating, since it takes some work and dedication to the platform, and has the potential to draw in millions annually from basic consumers. 50% now is fair but that percentage should actually increase if/when millions of consumers are on board, since the share would be spread out further. Make that savings account the place to earn on interest. It takes three days to quickly sell those funds. Make it one day. Leave the powerdown period as is, since that lengthy amount of time is what saved many of us from losing thousands when we came over from Steem.

Pardon my rambling response. It's been awhile since I stepped up to the keys...

P.S. Randomize the vote order at payout. There's enough money for development to cover the costs so someone can spend time doing something smart.

good to see ya!

Good to see you as well (and everyone else)! I was about to start posting again; but then I saw this...

  ·  7 days ago (edited)

The man (this man), the myth, the legend..nice to see you!

I somehow managed to live this long!

I heard Saskatchewan can be a dangerous place.

One wrong move and you'll get sucked into a combine harvester.

LOL.
Or fall into a pothole.

Welcome Back!

Thanks! Brief cameo... for now.

I'm still getting mileage out of for now... :0D

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Este comentario no se puede reblogear:(

No, pero todavía puede servir para algo.

I found you!!! I need to consume your content!!!!

Post something already.

Shush you idiot. Your getting ahead of yourself. He will create when he is damned ready.

Fine... I still found you.

You have not left.

Soon™

Fuck yeah!

The place was turning to shit without you around.

  ·  7 days ago (edited)

Really appreciate the work you are doing, but this sounds pretty terrible.

I powered up a lot of Hive in the last months mainly because I believe that Hive has a future, but also (and I'd lie if I'd say otherwise) because I can get something like 10-15% APR. This is a/the main incentive currently to power up Hive and buy it. It is what is absent in most other crypto projects and if we drop this feature I think the consequences might be quite drastic.

The reasons you gave for holding Hive after we lower curation to about 1/4 (governance and reduced inflation) are not very compelling (since most investors don't necessarily want to get so deeply involved with the chain/ or don't care this much about governance) Reduced inflation (and therefore reducing curation as you suggest) might be somewhat good for the token price in general, but it also comes at a cost of 10%+ APR. Every big investor won't like that kind of a trade.

I strongly suggest we overthink such an action carefully as I feel the thing that would be "fixed" by this would bring more harm to the blockchain at large (with investors leaving - and they will sell - token price will go south). Automatic curation can actually work very well if one reviews the accounts being curated once in a while. Automatic curation, I would argue, is actually one of the major incentives for many users to post at all currently as there is some "guarantee" of getting a return for your post.

Now, while it seems fair that people in group 3 should earn more than people in group 4 (after all people in group two are providing useful work to the blockchain), I think it’s clear that people in group 1 and group 2 shouldn’t earn more than people in group 4.

I don't think this is true at least for group 1. Again, auto curation can work quite well. I am autovoting myself about 70+ accounts currently (mostly minnows) and these votes definitely incentivize the authors to post (in what in my opinion is quality content). Therefore, I think this would count as "useful work" for the blockchain. Of course I am not saying that currently the system is working perfectly and there is definitely room for improvement. But lowering curation to 1/4 is not a good solution in my opinion.

Well, you're at least one of the first to make an argument for auto-voting. I think the payout for such auto-voting is too high, but I understand your view point. Anyways, my opinion on this was never strong, and lots of other people do have strong opinions on it, so I'm just going to drop it :-) Author/curation rewards are really low on my list of things to spend time on for Hive anyways.

It's true that there's almost no reason to hold HIVE. Its value is inherently deflationary. HIVE is like a hot potato... you never want to own any.... and if you get it, you quickly get rid of it (or lose).

I’m going to have a firm NO stance on this one. My voice is small potatoes for sure but I create content fairly consistently for the chain and do my own manual curation every single day. I have very meager stake compared to some serious players on here but I’m very proud of what I’ve earned.

I’ve put a few hundred dollars into this place over the years and I’ve only taken out 25 hive into bitcoin, which is pennies compared to what the value of a bitcoin is. Changing the economic model yet again to hurt things like curation is asinine to me. I have auto votes set up for communities that I feel are important. I absolutely love the natural medicine community. Do I have time to curate that on top of being in the introduction section almost every day, trying to help new users? I unfortunately don’t because I also work and have a family. I can’t commit more hours a day then I already do (about 4-5 hours as it is over the course of the day) so that I can not only give other people my hive votes but my tribe token votes as well.

If we never had the tribe tokens I might be a little more reasonable with this proposal but there are tribe leaders and members that spend their entire day building their tribe and brand. Those of us that believe in the project but don’t have the same ability to dedicate time to look at the posts, curate the good ones and repeat with the other tribes trust in the tribe leadership and set up automatic votes based on their lead accounts. The same goes with PAL and Leo. Those are wonderful communities with dedicated members and teams. We have lots of PAL tokens staked for the voting benefit of others. Trying to hit the voters where they are trying to earn mere pennies is not something I could support at all.

I feel like this is just a way for people to pump and dump tokens. What’s the point of this whole thing if we can’t show our commitment to the platform and stake our tokens to be then rewarded with some curation as a way to say thank you for supporting it. As others have said, changing it back to a formula that disincentives curation will just lead to massive amounts of more spam posts and make people spend more time hunting down the farmers. All of that benefits those with the largest stake and crushes the newer generation of hive newcomers.

It doesn’t mean much but this was an easy downvote for me. I know you are trying to start dialogue and I’m glad but please take into consideration the lower tier of users. You need us to continue this experiment, many will begrudgingly accept it but many will also not. I don’t know which side I sit on if this were to come to pass. I’m usually 90% towards sticking to hive for the long run but that would definitely bring me to 50/50.

The side efffect of this proposal will affect some hardworking manual curating communities with standing promise to reward their delegators eg: ocd, bdvoter, Indianunited.

No matter the proposal as long as it all boils down to a system created by codes, people will always find ways to exploit.

I think we need to establish and reward a culture of generosity; in the end, anyone who votes is distributing HIVE that appears out of nowhere/inflation. It already is a gift-society.
Establishing a culture might be more in line than regulating things too much...

No matter the proposal as long as it all boils down to a system created by codes, people will always find ways to exploit.

I love the optimism there :-) As a practical matter, I disagree with such cynicism. Game theory does work and software can be built that relies on it. That's true, regardless of whether this particular change would be an improvement.

I second this. The EIP while not perfect made such a positive profound change on the voting habits.

I'm not sure how all this is calculated or it is possible but would there be someway to differentiate accounts that are auto/bot accounts, be it bid bots or autovote bots/proxy voting and introduce some sort of tax to it? That way manual curation is favoured, it pays better but you can still do your auto thing if you so choose.

Or could there be some way that votes are weighted higher when done manually versus auto? Just thinking out loud, not sure if this is a practical way of doing this

I always thought it would be cool too on front ends to have votes classification so you can see how many votes are manual vs auto that way you know who is putting in the time to view and vote vs people who just want to "support" your work.

I'm not sure how all this is calculated or it is possible but would there be someway to differentiate accounts that are auto/bot accounts, be it bid bots or autovote bots/proxy voting and introduce some sort of tax to it?

I think this is not easy to do. Methods could be devised to spot the current voting patterns of auto-vote bots, but those could be overcome easily by algorithm changes by the vote bots, leading to an arms race between the two sides that goes nowhere and just wastes time.

But if a curation trail exists, we can certainly identify the participants, correct? Even if it's only to put them on probation for a couple of weeks? 🤔

Don't know. But it sure would hurt efforts like mine if we can't find a way to reward real curating. 🙁

It would be easy to randomize the timing to make such patterns difficult to identify.

if you give permission to a vote bot service you are penalized with less curation rewards. is that possible? If so, anyone aware of that would immediately remove permissions to those services.

There's no obvious way to do that, unfortunately.

BT is correct about the arms race between auto-voters trying to look like manual voters and the code to try detect auto voters. But, the game is even worse; blockchain code to detect auto vs manual will be in the public eye while the moves of the bots are hidden. It's not easy to win a game of chess where your opponent knows ahead of time exactly how you'll react to what they're doing.

I understand and that is a valid point, it would just be a tit for tat exchange and get no one anywhere and focus resources on things that take away from other improvements. I think it comes to a point where you have to gauge the impact like are these auto votes really impacting the end goals?

I mean I would say if tomorrow we had instant sign-ups and users could flood in easily drown out a lot of this and gobble up inflation in more ways than we can think of right now

The Hive blockchain currently has an inflation rate of 8.5%, which decreases 0.5% each year (don’t quote me, as maybe it already dropped to 8%, I don’t know exactly when the change occurs). My back-of-the-envelope calculation leads me to believe that overall inflation will drop to about 6.5% if we reduce curation rewards by 75%.

I don’t know exactly when the change occurs

How is it possible that you don't know that inflation is reduced by 0.1% given a certain number of blocks? This translates to about half a percent a year. Don't quote me on that.

Just estimated the math by hand.
Would be around every 2.1M blocks.
Where's the white paper when you need it?


Once again messing with inflation so aggressively is a bad idea, especially when the block reward and the DHF remain unaffected, thereby gifting the elite more money via less selling pressure from other sources.

OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Once again my suggestion would be to allocate inflation away from the reward pool and into the bank accounts. We can eliminate curation entirely by allowing stake-holders to exit to the bank accounts if all they are looking for is ROI. On top of that awesome-sauce, we can work to bring collateralized loans that use the same bank accounts as collateral to create/destroy HBD to maintain the peg on the fly.

How does facebook do it?

How does Twitter do it? How does Instagram do it? Do all the centralized options order posts on the trending tabs via their payouts? Oh wait, there are no payouts. Frontends determine which posts get viewed, not stake-holders. Our system is totally ass-backwards.

Imagine letting the free market decide, rather than a few centralized accounts?

I don't think we should meddle/tweak/change settings without independent review from all angles. Somebody could propose or enact changes for personal gain. We can't risk the integrity of the blockchain by allowing a few people to suggest and carry out systemic changes.

That's the biggest issue of proof of stake !

Are you talking about the savings accounts when you say bank accounts?