Basically this platform is completely broken due to badly aligned economic rules. It couldn't get much worse than right now unless you actively tried. By introducing a series of measures, we can better

I'm not sure if this is very easy to do on the blockchain level. We are hoping to get separately delegatable downvotes which would partially address two primary conerns: Fear of retaliation of downvotes

It's not that downvoting doesn't have downsides, they are considerable. It's just that without a modest amount of free downvotes, we don't really have a realistic chance of turning this place around at

Yes, if we move away from some of the particular examples you gave and just say that in general, the total cost of VP per post will be distributed in a way that not only takes into consideration voting

Your counter arguments against the asymmetry I outlined revolves around a non linear distribution curve. However, the distribution curve itself plays no part here. Just like right now, if I were the only

I think you are absolutely right that "content indifferent voting being paid 4x more than honest content reflective voting" isn't really addressed by my proposal. We strongly disagree here. I

Yes, I think I understand what you mean. I believe my initial observation is correct but incomplete as it only focused on positive curation. So ignoring downvotes for a sec, say a post gets $10. Anyone

Hi liberosist, I'm glad you're open to consider the EIP As for your own proposal it's certainly interesting. The concept of rewarding good curation with not just money but VP is certainly novel. What I

I did look through your suggestions and some of your other replies The primary economic problem we have is that 70% (rough guess) and ever increasing amount of active SP are just clawing back their own

We can't test behavior in response to economic changes unless people actually care about the underlying currency. This means testnet can allow for technical tests to see if code is working as intended,

My very rough guess is that right now, around 70% of active steem power is redirecting rewards back into their own pockets through either self voting, voting selling to bid bots, spamming micro votes or

I see, i thought it was just some spam bot

meow

I think at the very least maybe graphs about covergent linear would have been nice in the main post

Thank you so much for writing this Kevin, I'm sorry I didn't get to this sooner as I was fielding comments in the other post I first want to publicly thank you for all the help for all your help on making

The entire idea here is to align making more money with content discovery and making it more expensive to behave in a way that contradicts that (eg self voting or vote selling) It's not inconceivable that

Yes, I'm not against running simulations, of course when the idea is to change behavior it's difficult to get a clear idea of what the new behavior would be under different economic incentives if we just

I virtually 100% agree with you here! The figure I basically had in mind was 25% (or 2.5) per day. Obviously free downvotes have their downsides (toxicity, abuse etc) but they need to be enough to threaten

then what compels you to believe that in this particularly instance economic reform is not apposite if it's the primary driver of behavior? I dont understand your argument and would wager not many do

Yes you've mentioned before that the economic incentives can't affect behavior at all, only culture Grant me one thing though, just one thing: it's at least trivially easy to come up with a worse economic