You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
I strongly believe one tweak would solve this. A free upvote to reverse downvotes. I talk about it here https://hive.blog/pob/@theycallmedan/proof-of-brain-theory-and-further-optimization
I reversed some of the damage from ura-soul, but in doing so I also hurt my curation rewards. No big deal to me, but a big deal to plenty and enough to make it so most shy away and or can't do it on a consistent basis without diluting themselves in the long run. I will revisit this and try to push for a community vote on it.
0.14880443 BEE
Thanks for your support Dan, it is appreciated here. I just read and reblogged your post on downvotes and you make some interesting points. I know that @r0nd0n is moving to amplify the actions of @freezepeach in a way that is not dis-similar to your ideas, but having an inbuilt system function within a DAO along the lines you suggest would maybe be the best possible option. I think that maybe your free upvote suggestion might be made simpler by just reducing the amount of free downvotes that people have to 1 per day, though the comlexity of the various proposed options will no doubt yield outcomes that I am not able to predict in advance, so maybe your model would work better.
It's definitely sub optimal to expect large stakeholders to police the network and usually it isn't needed - but then it usually isn't the case that other large stakeholders attempt to use negative reinforcement to increase their curation payouts, rather than offering positive, creative additions to the community. While it is unpleasant to see this in action and particularly when it is done under the guise of being a 'service' to the community, at the same time it is inevitable that such exploits and barriers to sustainable growth will get exposed in systems over time. The key is to focus on the solutions rather than get caught up in constant battle.
As a long time system engineer and now digital marketer, I am a fan of iterative testing of ideas and A/B testing. These allow us to see without any doubt which ideas/designs work best to achieve performance goals. Layer 2 solutions offer a definite way to test out a wide variety of ideas and I have advocated for this since the days of the mythical SMTs on Steem. We have never quite gotten there though and the high cost to entry for Layer 2 sites on Hive currently is significantly holding this process back.
If layer 2 solutions become cheap enough to enable rapid development and testing of new ideas then I think we will see these wider systemic problems resolved quickly too. In the absence of that, I would suggest being open to testing variations on downvoting via future Hard Forks, such as reducing the amount of free ones available and/or the DAO idea you mentioned.
Cheers!
Thanks for the mention. We are indeed working on a solution, which is the culmination of trial and error over these past few years. Allowing stakeholders to act in accord to with other like minded stakeholders to take the wind out of the sails with regards to politically motivated downvoters. No flag wars, no drama, just positive interaction to curb and perhaps eliminate the behavior entirely.
View more
There is a free upvote service from @droida at http://droida.ch/hive/, but I highly doubt that it could reverse the downvote of a whale, let alone a group of whales. At least currently. This project should get much more support from the community. There should be strong co-operation to reverse downvotes.
Thank you for the mention.
View more
Ah, yes. I had not seen that before. Thanks for sharing!
I was getting ready to publish a post explaining how the only way to effectively counter subjective downvotes is to fight DVs with DVs; and then recommending against doing so, because it would ultimately hurt much more than it helps, due to all the collateral damage associated with every DV (i.e. DVs reduce or eliminate curation rewards from those who cast upvotes in good faith). Not to mention the fact that creating a DV warzone would be a really bad look for the platform.
Your proposed solution enables a counter that should be effective (or at least partially effective, depending upon the relative stakes of all involved) but without the collateral damage.
One potential problem I see with that solution involves timing. A malicious downvoter can time their downvote to occur just prior to payout, thus eliminating the opportunity for 'free upvotes' to counter the downvote. So, maybe free upvotes should be allowed up to 24 hours after the normal voting window closes.
Yes we would need to have a cutoff in place. After the final downvote is cast only the count upvote can be used for x time until finished. I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.
View more
On that same post I pointed out how the "free upvote" is basically just a nerf to downvotes (those getting downvoted, whether justified or not, can use the "free upvote" as a sort of shield, which can be harmful as often as helpful). While that would help with "bad" downvotes, it would also hurt the value of "good" downvotes. I'm far from convinced it really helps overall, and could very well make matters worse overall.
At some point, people have to just accept the fact that voted rewards are a sort of consensus-finding process, and if enough people/stake don't agree that the rewards should be paid to someone or some content, for whatever subjective reasons, that isn't consensus, and the rewards won't be paid (or less will be paid). The total amount of rewards, system-wide, will still be paid, they'll just go somewhere else, somewhere less contentious and more aligned with consensus. One poster's loss is always other posters' gain. It is a zero-sum game in a short-term sense, and inherent in that is that not everyone can win.
Absolutely! We, the consumer are at liberty to consume.
That said I worry about the volume of non-sense that often get rewarded by massive upvote. Not only it makes us look bad (like a conspiracy platform full of shady people), but also most of these folks sell their rewards immediately and therefore are a drain in the system. I don't even feel they believe in the "snake oil" they are peddling, smooth, they do it because it pays handsomely!
View more
I liked the suggestion you made to my original idea on this point. "I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized."
Not sure exactly how we get there, but my point remains. If you get diluted by taking action, very few, if any, will take that action. It helped a lot with DVs. While I agree we need more healthy DVs on the most post, it's rare to get a post on web2 without a downvote. It's just people need to adjust the downvote size, or it causes harm. No need to zero out a post from someone legit every time they post to the chain. So it would be nice to find a way not to be diluted when trying to find equilibrium with the token distribution.
View more
I appreciate Dan for doing that. Many moons ago Dan you published a video and I remember it quite well. I can't quote 100% from memory but it was something like below:
Somewhere along the line people forgot this simple fact, that when we publish a post, we have no control on voting. People may upvote or downvote. If it is an honest post, it shouldn't matter to the author. As the way hive is designed it is immutable.
Therefore, the only thing remains is the reward. As per hive (and original steem whitepaper) the author only gets the reward on the 7 day at payout, before that the reward belongs to the reward pool. Many people have hard time understanding this simple fact.
All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.
Hi,
there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users.
Everyone is liable for their own content, as happens, for example, with the use of images and texts that someone publishes as the author. You are relying on statements made by individuals or on a paper that is considered a guideline but does not call itself a law, which the operators (or witnesses) would take legal action if it were disregarded. Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations. You don't have a clear situation here, even though you might prefer that.
Since the nature of blockchain in relation to blogging is something entirely different and still new (compared to private blogs or other media channels where there are clear payment modalities), I think it is understandable that someone would not consider their post as a "draft" but as a finished result. Understanding the seven days as a "holding pattern" is quite a lot to ask, when opinions and reactions to a publication can and do arrive from minute one. (Also, marketing differs).
In principle, it would be wiser not to vote or comment on a contribution as soon as it is published, but only towards the end, in case the author still makes changes. But since the function exists from the moment of publication (including monetary incentives), most people consider their own post and the posts of others as "completed" and I don't know anyone who seriously changes their own piece so much that it would take up, for example, a change percentage of over 20 percent. I think, this contradicts your statement somewhat about the 7 days. I find it anything than simple.
I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders. Everyone is a stakeholder, including authors. What makes you think they don't have a stake? Once you collect value in your wallet, you are already a stakeholder, aren't you? The moment you theoretically put yourself in a position to trade cryptos, you are a holder of cryptocurrency. So I would like you to explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the operators of the servers, the determiners of the content regarding the hard forks, the so-called witnesses? Who exactly do you mean by stakeholders?
Thank you.
View more
That is certainly an alternative that merits discussion.
I have often felt that the current model is not very investor-centric. I don't know of many investors who would want to bother with 'curating' in order to maximize their investment.
With that said, Hive's value proposition is far deeper than social media. Keeping social media rewards as a Layer 1 feature need not be a sacred cow, imho. However, I don't see any immediate advantages to eliminating social media rewards from Layer 1, and there would definitely be disruptions associated with doing so -- and thus unforeseeable unintended consequences.
A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP (i.e. allows its voting manna to exceed 100% exactly half the time), then returns 100% of those rewards to the delegators. Basically, that allows investors to choose whether they want to curate or whether they just want to bank their would-be curation rewards, without hassling with curating (and they can choose how much of their stake they want to apportion each way, and can change that percentage from time to time).
The advantage would be that the reward pool will be larger (because the special account only votes half the time) and there would be much fewer autovoters muddying up manual curation efforts.
View more
Problem with removing voting rewards, I don't even like calling them that; I call it token distribution of the base layer governance system. We are on a coin voting platform. The inflation is lowering every block until it'll be sub 1%. 1% inflation is very very small, but will still play some role in further decentralizing governance. If we make the mistake of allowing only one group of people IE Miners, Dao contractors, or whomever, we could fall into centralization before we know it. I know some will say some people just power down and sell, but id always wager and say we have some very, very long term outstanding hivers who earned a lot through creating content and being active. For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers. As inflation lowers, the dumping will have little to no impact on price, but the loyal hivers we helped mold in the early days will continue to shape hive well into the future.
View more
Or maybe just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
That way, if people have equal stake, it takes TWO people downvoting in order to ZERO them out.
Isn't the whole theory of downvoting supposed to be some sort of "community consensus" anyway ?
The reversing/countering initiatives are going to run in circles indefinately. The reason behind it is the difference in the UV architecture vs DV architecture. While I consider "normalising DVs" the correct approach, you cannot find balance until there is a financial incentive to use DVs.
If DV mana produced rewards (making it unprofitable to sit at 100% just like current UV mana) the principal difference gets removed and the system gets more stable.
My best pitch would be to distribute author rewards based on sum of the votes while distributing curator rewards based on sum of absolute values of the votes (in non-math language: let's curation-reward a 0.1 DV the same as we curation-reward a 0.1 UV).
I could have made a post discussing the weak spots of the new system already but I would have got zero for my work and very few people would have seen it on their Hive frontend. So I have decided not to make it.
This is interesting and something I've not thought of. Giving a DV mana pool a divy of inflation, and it acts the same as UV in terms up earning rewards for using it. Few things pop into my head ill need to give it a deeper think.
View more
Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.
View more