Liquified risk and reward

in LeoFinance •  2 months ago 

You might have noticed the other day the announcement from @acidyo for @reward.app, a service that has the ability to alter the curation percentage so that an author can give more rewards to voters. I don't know how many years ago it was, but I have mentioned that a curation reward slider should be introduced for authors to affect rewards and this is somewhat like that. I support experimentation and while there are plenty of ways to abuse it, I still think it is worth the testing. It manages this through beneficiaries that liquify the rewards and then distribute them outward.

You might have also noticed another post from @curangel that says, no posts with liquified rewards will get curated and a message is left on the author to mention that they were curated, but missed the vote on that post because of the liquids. The position here is that they want to encourage people to look long-term, not liquify through a middleman service to sell. I support this too.

This tension between the two positions is good.

You might have even read a post by me the other day talking how every system will get gamed and that I believe that complexity and "no clear path" to optimization is part of the solution to controlling abuse. It doesn't matter what system it is, people are going to find ways to game it and Hive has many systems, which is why abuse can run relatively rampant, but due to the EIP, large scale abuse is less.

@reward.app can be seen as a type of vote-buying service, as it could encourage curators to look for ways to maximize their curation by targeting the accounts that offer the "best" curation percentage. This sounds much like bidbots that would offer the best ROI - but there is a bit of difference in @reward.app that I believe needs to be considered, as it adds in a factor that didn't exist earlier.

Previously, Bidbots would take HBD/HIVE payments and then would vote on a post at a greater percentage of the payment so that the buyer would make some profit after payout. The majority of the profits however were made by the sellers themselves - the "curators" who delegated their stake for a percentage share of the purchases - plus curation returns. At one point, about 40% of stake on the platform was selling votes to about 1% of all the posts. One massive problem was that the profit for the delegators was protected as it was direct from wallet to wallet, meaning that there was zero risk to the business, all risk was on the buyer. The EIP changed the model because of this, as once there were free downvotes and the curation return was 50/50 split, the risk of buying votes was too great as it became very easy to turn that 10% profit into a large loss.

The EIP is of course still in place and this is a big factor to limit abuse as both the author and the "seller" are at risk of some kind, even though no one is actually directly purchasing a vote, it is based on the future value of the post payout. This is an important distinction to make and I will illustrate this with an obvious example.

Let's say there is a low-quality author that gets nothing usually because they offer crap, but then decides to give a 90% curation return and take 10% for themselves. This should attract voters looking to maximize their curation, but it is all on chain, meaning that if they do vote it highly, it is going to get downvoted also - in this case, to zero. This means that the vote they applied is nullified by the downvote and regardless of the added curation percentage, their vote attracts nothing - which is a terrible result for someone looking to maximize their curation.

This means that there is additional game in the system where a curator might want to maximize, but they also have to be wary of the kind of content they vote as if it is downvoted, they lose potential returns. The bidbot operators and delegators didn't have to care at all about the content because the majority of their profits (the purchase price) was never open to downvotes at all. The EIP had the effect it did because authors didn't want to lose.

@reward.app flips this a bit because the authors have less to lose than the curators, as they don't make a purchase, but the curators have stake and can definitely earn curation returns on content. This means that even if authors use the service and offer much larger curation, it doesn't necessarily mean that curators are going to find it attractive to vote on as they have to consider the downvotes. There might be accounts that curate them regardless and take the risk, but these aren't likely to be the larger accounts. Also, if the votes aren't significantly higher than what they would be without using the service, the author will be "losing" potential earnings as well.

What could be introduced in the future is a list of accounts using the service, percentage of curation added and pending payouts, this would allow people an opportunity to negotiate the value of the post with downvotes and return that value to the pool, which means from both author and curator. This could bring in some very interesting information in regard to curation practices and how post value is perceived. On top of this, things like "hidden" curation percentages could be introduced and other factors like randomization and bonus lotteries where for example, I could charge a lottery account to be distributed on a random future post.

Not everyone is going to agree with all of the various changes to the system or how people use the code, whether it be layer two like @reward.app or on the blockchain code itself, but experimentation is needed and the system has to keep evolving and creating and destroying parts of itself in order to grow stronger, more diversified, decentralized and robust. As I said in the post linked above,

On Hive, I believe that to combat negative usage, the system itself should be simple from a user perspective, but there should be increasing complexity and change through a fracturing of the many systems into usecases that are narrow.

What this means is that users will have an increasing amount of decisions to make in the path they take. For example, I tried to curate a post with @curangel and it was rejected because it used @reward.app - they got an automated comment about stating this and saying that future posts won't be affected, only ones that liquify rewards. This is a good thing, as now that author has to make a decision on whether it is more important for them to liquify their rewards and offer a greater curation percentage or, get curated by a project.

Decisions, decisions - and the more decisions that need to be made and the more opportunity cost each has, the less clear the game gets, so people will have to choose a path which will exclude other paths. For the curators that used to delegate to bidbots in a "set and forget" approach, targeting @reward.app high curation posts might cost them more than voting on posts that don't use it, which means they are going to have to pay some attention to what is going on - something they didn't have to do with the bidbots, as they could just get their cut sent to them automatically each day.

A side benefit of this experiment is that it might encourage people to use their downvotes again, as without the bidbots voting on crap, it isn't clear for many people where they should use their 2.5 downvotes a day, so they don't at all. A post that uses @reward.app might attract more votes, but it could also attract more scrutiny from the community, which is a good thing - as if it is really valuable, it might get more votes .... but if it isn't and is already high...

I look long on Hive and want people to power up, but I also want there to be an increasing amount of options and pathways to take, rather than everyone crowding around the obvious. I very much disliked the bidbot era and actively worked for years to undermine it, but a lot of the problem with it was that the incentive to sell votes wasn't exposed to risk. Risk is an important part of the game, especially when it comes to abuse. There are physical, financial, legal and of course, social risks that affect our behaviors.

I don't know how the experiment will evolve, but I think that it is an important discussion to have and the system feedback could prove invaluable for making decisions in other regards also. What I do like is that like @blocktrades mentioned in his post on Hive as a second-layer blockchain,,

Anyone can write their own 2nd layer Hive application that gives meaning to these custom_json transactions, and they can do it without requiring any changes to the “core” Hive software.

the developers themselves are exploring what is possible without changing the code at the blockchain level, but still able to attempt to affect the distribution and usecase spread. Not everyone is going to agree with how this is done, or who it is done by - but it makes for a dynamic environment that continually increases the difficulty to wholesale game the system. This will have many misses, but I hope there will be some decent hits in the mix too.

What are your thoughts on this app, as well as the continued exploration of possibility on the Hive second layer?

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

Posted Using LeoFinance

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 signed up for it, all the while trying to decide if all I am doing is using a bidbot. So, I may try it, but, will wait to see the outcome. I truly dislike bidbots as I think they helped ruin Steemit, destroyed reps and had people gaming the system.

All I ever wanted was to post. And they have found so many ways to ruin that experience. ;)

We will see how it blows!

!tip

I dislike bidbots too - one of the challenges was no way to combat them and the sellers were protected from the blockchain mechanisms - The EIP changed that and there aren't many bots left.

Hopefully, reward.app is used for having some fun, not just gaming the system, but perhaps it is good to see who does what with it ;)

!ENGAGE 25

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

The main thing about @reward.app which attracted me is if one wants attention to his posts more than the reward. He could set a high reward for curators and get curated, the same time the post needed to have a certain quality to get curated.

Yep, I think there will be a bit of this - but I also think that at the moment, most people don't know about it at all - so it would require a secondary service also. I like that there are people using it though, as I think that the feedback is important.

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

!ENGAGE 20

I was one of those people who got a message. I was trying it as a experiment and was pretty surprised, but I understand the position that they have taken. I might mix it up and try both to see which has more impact on my engagement. Obviously, I’m here to be rewarded for my content, but I believe we should focus on engagement as the more people who interact with your content the more rewards you will get. Don’t just focus on getting rewarded with single larger upvotes.

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

Please let me know if yo notice some effect on the engagement level. It is early days however and will take time for awareness to see what really happens - if anything :)

!ENGAGE 25

Will do. I's always looking how to increase my network. It's difficult, but commenting seems to be the best method thus far. I think it speaks more than just a vote.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

Great post.
I decided to test @reward.app in some of my posts in the coming weeks.
For me @reward.app is an interesting option, I hope, sharing an extra part of my earnings with curators, will encourage new readers to see my posts.
In the title of the post I will indicate whether the post will be paid for by @reward.app, and I will write exactly how many additional percentages I am giving.
What will come of this? We will see :)

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

In the title of the post I will indicate whether the post will be paid for by @reward.app, and I will write exactly how many additional percentages I am giving.

Get back to me on this with your findings please. I think it might take a bit of time for it to build enough awareness, but it is interesting!

!ENGAGE 20

I like that the author can offer the opportunity to sacrifice part or all of their own portion to curators. The interesting thing to me is that the post isn't all the sudden advertised or anything. Everything is out in the open if folks look on the backend... but not many newer users would realize that the incentive is kind of hidden to be curated with this app. I do think it's worth the testing as you said for the sliding factor. I used to complain about not having one for upvoting back in the day! It's an interesting time in all the development and improvements.

I am against the liquid aspects of changing the system in the hardforks but don't mind an app like this that offers some flexibility. For the change in the fork it would incentivize more folks to exchange rather than growing their accounts intrinsically! So, i do prefer the HP method of rewards over the liquid Hive. However, I don't even know how curating works anymore as far as the time and increase/decrease is concerned. I am afraid to vote at times because I see that my upvote takes the reward down and I don't want to decrease the reward for the content I find of value. @tarazkp is there any article or old post explaining this that you know?

I used to complain about not having one for upvoting back in the day!

Funny thing was that when I got my slider, I didn't know it was a thing that was earned, I thought it was a UI change :D

I am not sure why sometimes it takes the reward down, but it could be that the vote triggers a recalculation, and if the price feed has changed downward, it will appear to take it down.

Here's one I prepared earlier:
https://hive.blog/hive-167922/@tarazkp/how-does-curation-work-on-hive-what-are-the-rules-posting-and-voting-limits

I thought it was a UI change :D

before it was changed to 500 it used to be 10k or something :')

I didn't know about Busy.org for months :)

good thing you had no followers back then anyway so the votes were not worth anything :p

I remember it took me about 6 months to get to 500 followers back then - I think I was a dolphin before that :D

That makes sense. I felt guilty so I figured I better hold on and wait on my votes until I figure it out. I have been trying to upvote the smaller accounts and look for some good art to support. I found (thanks to one of Acidyo's responses and posts) that some of my early votes to help them get more just returned back to the rewards pool!

Hahahaha It's a whole new game but I will get back my old sea legs here ASAP! I am looking forward to reading your post!

You'll get there but in general, just vote on what you like. there are some good art communities. Onchainart is full of talent.

The more people and users get involved into any second layer App launch the better. It means the platform is alive, it gives more options to its users and it gives a great exploration sandbox for future code implementations.

I think there is value in the learning and the innovation from the feedback.

I am fan of the 'service' and will likely use it on future posts. I'm not sure it will earn me any extra votes, and it's more of a way of lowering my take - which I believe to be too high most of the time.

I think you are someone who should earn more, as you help many out directly and indirectly.

Something we disagree on. Thanks :)

I think both of you should earn less and me more, so, remember to throw me a beneficiary cut in your future posts!

😁

Not easy if you use reward.app?

It's okay, just keep sending them through tips but make sure you pay the fee. :p

:P

I think i've paid the fee on all my tips so far!

The position here is that they want to encourage people to look long-term, not liquify through a middleman service to sell.


What happens to those who live by their hive earnings? They shouldn't sell some rewards?

Posted Using LeoFinance

What happens to those who live by their hive earnings? They shouldn't sell some rewards?

They can do as they please, that is part of the game too. There shouldn't be special consideration because some people live off of their earnings while others do not. Personally, I think it is crazy to try and live off Hive as I do not think the platform is stable enough at this point, and the crypto industry fluctuates wildly. But everyone is free to do as they do - but it doesn't mean there won't be resistance from others doing what they do.

Very well understood.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

Ah, in the end I'm too lazy and too small to play the maximisation games. I vote on the post if I like it and at the time I see it. In the end, for little people like me, the difference between a inefficient vote and maximised vote means little in the way of curation.

I can see that it would be a good way to bootstrap an account with new followers.. But in some ways, it feels like the airdrop style of thinking. Projects thought that giving people free tokens would bootstrap an audience... But the majority were there only for the free lunch.

Likewise, I think it will definitely bootstrap a follower and curation audience, but will it be a lasting and meaningful following?

Edit: I'm curious how it pans out, but I'm not sure that I would use it at the moment (either as poster or voter).

Ah, in the end I'm too lazy and too small to play the maximisation games.

I am the same and it takes the fun out of it for me to try and maximize.

It is relative, as for the large accounts, the difference might seem much more in Hive, but then, they likely don't care that much either way, much like yourself. Many do though at all levels. I see a lot of accounts maximizing with very little stake when they would be better off doing something that adds value and gets support-.

Likewise, I think it will definitely bootstrap a follower and curation audience, but will it be a lasting and meaningful following?

Unlikely - how many of the "bidbot trenders" are there still here? I think where this app has its real merits is in running lotteries and the like. I could see myself charging up a kitty, then having it randomly go out to curators on a post - kind of like a surprise or, the same thing for engagement posts like Galen runs.

Huh, that is definitely an interesting use!

I think there are big positive possibilities on 'the second level'. I'm not so sure this is one of them... It sorta feels like a return to bid bots on some level and just the thought of that turns me off.

In truth, I'd rather support the authors than the curators. I know that both are essential to the process, but I feel the authors need the support to keep them putting out quality content. The alternative is circular curation and bots that pick and chose maximum payout rather than maximum quality.

I'll not use it. The payout is NOT my motivation. A nice bonus, but not my reason at all.

Which shouldn't be taken as a criticism of second level experimentation. I'm way in favor of that.

It sorta feels like a return to bid bots on some level and just the thought of that turns me off.

Yep, I understand this. However, I would like to see more thought go into curation (up and down) and this might be a way to reengage more sensitive voting, as the EIP encourages it.

I agree with supporting the authors more than curators, which i believe is part of the point of this. support decent authors and you might even make a better experience for everyone, plus earn a bit more. Maximize your stake to get higher curation rewards by voting on shit, lose curation rewards.

For now at least, I don't see myself using it either, but I am very interested in observing who does and the effects it might have.

Taraz: first of all I am confident that you and I personally understand each other, and we both understand that we both have the best interest of the platform in mind. With that out of the way, I must express my congratulations to you on your persistence and your trust on hive for the long term (for better or for worse :))

With that introduction; I have the following concerns;

meaning that if they do vote it highly, it is going to get downvoted also - in this case, to zero.

You are very aware that I use downvote. Now, if this thing catches on, I will have to do that more. Although most of us with average intelligence, understands, that downvotes are necessary, but few likes to get it. Few appreciate others who downvotes. As I know this well, that it will be hard for me to win a popularity contest. I am concerned therefore, as this tool will be used for abuse, it might cause more division within our already divided community. Let me know how you see it.

There is a difference between powering down and selling and abuse. I think that people should power up (as you probably realize), but they have to want to do it. Having it go to liquids isn't actually an issue as those who are going to sell, as re going to sell anyway.

As for the abuse of the system, I agree - downvoting isn't popular and it should be used more. But, it isn't really getting used by most now as most people don't want to commit to targets, or spend their time looking for them. No one likes getting downvoted, but that is the platform design we have. I hear Blurt doesn't have downvotes - looks like Steem trending - same people even.

I don't think that it will cause much more division, unless people make a big drama over it, as most tend to do over any change to the system, whether at the blockchain or 2nd layer. As I said, at least I have suggested a curation slider well back over 2 years ago, so the author can choose. This probably would have been somewhat of a combat against bidbots as well (this was prior to the EIP).

I'm still just a voter. I have no idea/clue how to figure out if a post has been set to reward.app, and am unlikely to go searching for that information. Even if the team at PeakD were to add another icon to the vote-payout line that would clearly show the post is reward.app enabled, i don't think it would effect my voting much at all.

I still believe there is room on Hive for all types of post, and for a lot of various reward systems, and ROI systems. People need to remember that commerce is a two way street. Money comes in and money goes out. If it only came in, it serves no purpose, if it only flows out it will run out and lose any value.

Like any investment there are short traders, and long holders and all the various groups in-between.

Even if the team at PeakD were to add another icon to the vote-payout line that would clearly show the post is reward.app enabled, i don't think it would effect my voting much at all.

I think it would be the same for many perhaps - except the optimizers. But then, I think it would be interesting to see how it all gets handled.

People need to remember that commerce is a two way street. Money comes in and money goes out. If it only came in, it serves no purpose, if it only flows out it will run out and lose any value.

Yes, and this is an opt-in system - some people opt to look long, some look very short indeed.

I would prefer a blockchain level version that doesn't liquify the rewards. The curation should come in the form of HP, then we can see if the curator is on power down which will be additional judging information.
Allowing it to be set from between 0~100% would be ideal, too. Let the user decide. As long as we have downvotes, they will learn quickly. Front ends can also give tios amd tricks
However, I like the fact that we can test it now, before requiring a hardfork and messing with Hive.

I'm still monitoring it. I think it's perfect for promotion like some said and when rewards aren't important, especially with highly automated stuff, but then again why should the cuators get it?

I would prefer a blockchain level version that doesn't liquify the rewards.

Me too and suggested such well over two years ago. This is the first iteration of this and I am pretty sure there will be multiple options for what could be done - for example and even now, not all of it gets liquified. For example, if I want 20 percent of my rewards to go to curators, I will set a 20% beneficiary to reward.app and then send the memo for 100% of it to be distributed. That way the remaining 80% (of the author 50) would be split as normal - HBD/HP or 100% HP. This could also be tweaked in many ways and options.

I actually didn't think of this. It makes sense. The thing is, I think 50% is an alright ratio. However, if the price of Hive goes up a lot maybe 80% will be in order.

Great post, totally agree with all the points :) Also I hope that when users will see additional, liquid rewards from curation, it will encourage them to power up to maximize those rewards.

What could be introduced in the future is a list of accounts using the service, percentage of curation added and pending payouts, this would allow people an opportunity to negotiate the value of the post with downvotes and return that value to the pool, which means from both author and curator.

Yep, there's definitely gonna be a list of posts that used the service so people can review them. Something like https://tipu.online/hive_recent_curations

Worth the experiment and it will be interesting to see what kinds of users and usage it gets.

I’ve set @reward.app as beneficiary on I think two posts so far. I guess you could call it an experiment, but not sure how I’d go about monitoring the experiment. I don’t try to maximize my own curation rewards (not using hive.vote for instance), but if @reward.app helps a little in the direction of spreading distribution around a bit so much the better. I really don’t understand @curangel’s opposition but I never understood the hatred that some folks have for #sbi either. Maybe I’m just dense. That would explain a lot.

Liquification of rewards means it can be sold on payout, normally curation is given as HP and one has to power down. So it's a short term outlook. A solution could be an option to send it as vested.
Higher curation % means less % is going to the author. If the goal of curangel is to help authors, this is a contradiction.
It incentivizes voting with is inorganic. This applies to SBI. Quality is difficult enough to judge as it is without all the incentivized rewarding going on.

Are these problems? They can be if misused a lot (I don't want to elaborate). Besides, we have downvoting if they become problems.

there are many reasons that people have to push against these things, but there are also many reasons to experiment in different ways and see what comes of it.

It incentivizes voting with is inorganic.

I think that if people are active, it might actually encourage organic voting more. This could be tweaked in several ways by for example changing the way it distributes, rather than just following the reverse auction and stacking effects.

It can also encourage other organic activity such as engagement, etc. Nothing is simple. All of it has to be judged case by case and unless it is overwhelmlingf negative and cannot be controlled (bid bots before free downvotes), I tend to think it's good.
I'm trying to think of the bad, not my actual opinion.

!ENGAGE 20

The vast majority of curation rewards will still be in the form of vested HP. Authors who want “fast cash” are probably already choosing 50/50.

For what it’s worth, I’m for now leaving @reward.app at the 4% default and plan to power up something like 90% of any liquid rewards I get. I’m here for the long haul.

I think many people are doing what you do, except those who aren't. We cannot assume any of it is abuse or bad, most of it probably is just fine or good. Giving 4% extra curation is a nice gesture. I like the diversity all these options allow for.

I want to try using rewarding.app, especially for moly posts that are lower effort (things like ask hive where others put in a lot of effort, too~ or single photo posts that take less than 30 minutes to put together).

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

again the problem is, only a limited number of people downvote. those who does at at their limit... this just adds work.

I do wish there were ways to delegate just for the purpose of downvoting (separate the 2 types). This would be the ultimate solution.

This would indeed be nice.

It's sure a way for curators to get more from the author's. But I think might be it will not be different than up vote bit where you send some money to get up vote. Think about a scenario where an author has set 75% and thus the curators will upvote it, the questions here is how can we judge the quality as well as how can we make it different than the normal up vote bot which somewhat does the same thing.

the difference is mentioned in what I wrote - when it is all organised on the post, the curator cut is also open for downvoting. Bidbots had essentially protection from downvotes and the author took the risk.

I believe that any initiative to improve the quality of the posts here is welcomed. I would also be curious to see if it would boost engagement as well.

It will be interesting to watch.

Yep, just an experiment and it will have limited effect because it is not on the blockchain level.

Experiments are always fun, they tend to reveal stuff

100% curation posting would be fun

I agree and it would be interesting to set random curation lottery prizes too :)

I think the self vote should be cancel so author have to upvote to earn curation reward and meanwhile help hive community

also, upvote bots should be removed to help new and improve the content

love.jpeg

I have noticed you selfvote your own comments a lot :D

haha gotta stand out man

You should try for the right reasons, instead of selfvoting and copying other people's comments :)

thank for the tips I'll try to change

Im going to be perfectly honest to you now, in the sake of building a constructive conversation:
the biggest risk to the platform is stakeholders that vote shit content from underdeveloped countries, even if the HP part is withheld to vote for more of that shit, HP that comes from shit content will most likely vote for shit content in the future, or at least its reasonable to think so.
The stake holders that vote for such content, think very short term, only in the illusion that "user retention" of shit users will get a real investor to pop in, not noticing this is a den of abuse, and investing. Those strategies are destined to fail imo, and they have failed for 4 years, onboarding shit, doesnt work.
So liquified or not, they are missing the point, and I think
, intentionally.
The idea, apparently , seems to be that if we support enough shit content that will make quality content producers to come, or that at least we can keep the traffic numbers up, again, it wont work. and you know it.

🎁 Hi @tarazkp! You have received 0.1 HIVE tip from @dswigle!

Check out @dswigle blog here and follow if you like the content :)

Sending tips with @tipU - how to guide.