What we are trying to prevent: Cephalopod circle jerk cluster
Please see this issue on rewards.
Please try out whaleshares which has ended the circle jerk by moving to a tip-only way of handling inflation that benefits stakeholders first, then allows them to tip content creators at their option.
This is not to say that we want to move to the whaleshares economic/reward system on Blurt. Instead, I would like it if our users got familiar with other economic approaches on content blockchains.
On whaleshares I have a pretty large stake when expressed as percentage of supply.
Every 24 hours, I can claim my daily reward, about 1400 WLS. Because I am the stakeholder and I am in control of inflation generated from my funds, I can choose whether to add that to my whale stake or add it to my tip jar. I can give tips to other users for their content from my tip jar.
As a large stakeholder, this is nice because I retain control of my property at all times.
Now, as for blurt, I think there are a few possible avenues that we can explore:
- Keep reward ratio the same (50% creator 50% curator) and:
- Fix convergent linear rewards
- Move to linear rewards
- Change reward ratio for everyone and:
- Fix convergent linear rewards
- Move to linear rewards
- Allow authors to define the ratio on their content (I like this approach)
- Move to a whaleshares-like tip only system (not sure that this is appropriate for the Blurt community, but it's interesting)
- design something totally new in collaboration with the community
Let us know what you think! I would really love to hear feedback from people who have tried whale shares and have thoughts on their economic system.
Thank you!
if you hate blurt, please sell blurt to people who love Blurt on @blurtlink or @ionomy.
if you love blurt, please buy it from people who hate Blurt on @blurtlink or @ionomy.
My idea is to have flags but at the same time kind of a user elected committee to curb personal flag wars. You may read more here and here.
As I am here also would like to mention that in my eyes the short curation window is bad for real curators - you may read here and here.
Flags are always negatively perceived in blogging communities. This should be avoid as long as there are other instruments to combat rubbish. One small monetarized account cannot punish a cheating whale, not even thousand of them. But one whale is capable of destroying thousands of bloggers. The downvote is a very double-edged affair that has brought nothing but annoyance on the Steem. Especially if flags are unspecific without giving reasons. However, each specification of reasons for a flag creates an additional load on the blockchain performance, which should be avoided at all costs. The remove of flags was the right step.
As far as the short voting period is concerned, I favour a perpetual voting period, which can be extended in several steps over 7 days, 30 days, a quarter, up to an annual payment. You should include a trigger that switches to "true" when a curation is above zero. The administrative effort is high, but on the other hand there is a much higher comfort feeling with quality bloggers, whose articles often have a timeless character.
That's why you should read my linked article about the suggested 'anti flag abuse' committees.
Without flags you can do nothing against plagiarism, farming, self-voting, circle jerking and even worse things ...
If a medieval exorzism committee is needed to regulate a modern technical platform, the setup of this platform is wrong.
When it comes to text, words, numbers, letters, strings I'm an absolute free speech maximalist.
Free speech doesn't necessarily mean free rewards ... I am often criticizing HIVE, but in my opinion flags as kind of a 'quality control' are badly needed ...
Edit: I should add: does plagiarism in your eyes belong to 'free speech' ... what about justiciable insults?
The problem is that you simply have no means here against anything which could (and will) harm the platform ...
If circle-voted korean short posts dominated the trending page, the setup of this plaform would be wrong! Ups ... it seems it is ...
We have to acknowledge that the problems with dishonest people will continue to exist until algorithms of AI will solve the problem. In principle, it is already possible to define algorithms that will most likely eliminate such dishonest practices. I remind you of Cheetah. The bot has already worked very reliably and at least forced bloggers to reference correctly. And there was no AI involved yet. Uuuups!
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
How?
Look also at German trending ...
Without flags that won't work, sorry, but sorry. :)
Also Cheetah could only work together with the threat of flagging ...
Cheetah is just an example for detecting misbehavior by algorithm. The bot is just marking the regarding postings and the curators are watching if the bot has been there or not. But flagging is a community act and very fuzzy.
We have a government on Blurt. An algorithm has to be created to detect suspected behavior and the government must decide to block obvious farming gangs or not. It's pretty easy with a government. When @jaki01 is able to find out who is cheating, it should be also able to detect cheats by algorithm.
Whaleshares-like tip system is a interesting concept. Would be an encouragement to write good quality content, especially when it is possible to give posts older than 7 days a tip.
just blurting, i like to keep things simple yet still interesting, interactive and responsive for the users, hence i like authors to define the ratio on their content with a sensible default initially. i do not like a whaleshares-like tip only system. tipping can be done anyways using individual tx and even automated via independent tipu-like services once those appear.
Thank you for blurting.
I've taken your comment and put it in our issue for discussion.
So far, the author's define own ratio mechanism is my favorite, too.
The suggestion seems very nice but in everyday practice you can set the switch to 75/25. It is not worth the effort to further differentiate, because the vast majority of bloggers would choose the maximum profit for their own pockets.
I have had the idea of non-voting, interest (in liquid) paying staked form, for quite a long time, since it seemed to me like a temptation for whales to play silly buggers. Like Blurt Power but instead of voting you get interest, equal to what would be paid to users you vote for.
Since we have to have liquid Blurt to post and vote, it seems to me there should be some way to access the interest that vests in it, like you say, how whaleshares does it. I think if a user stashes enough power in such a interest paying staked asset they effectively get free use of the forum.
It occurs to me that having this interest paying form of stake - it would make sense to put it in every spot where previously the system used to give SBD. So by default you get 50/50, voting/interest paying stake for your reward. It would be nice to be able to switch the ratio too, so you can have all interest or no interest, or anything in between.
How about a non-stake weighted vote feature that is dynamic and equal. This could be that the amount of votes determines the percentage of the rewards pool you earn.
For example, there are 10 posts. 1 receives 5 votes, 1-2 and the rest 1. The amount of votes determines the percentage each vote is worth and the most popular receives the most shares.
While this won't stop the circle jerks, the distribution would be more fair.
interesting blurt allround, but i'm blurting that this doesn't feel right to me. i like stake to have proportional curation influence. just my take
Well, we know from other platforms that high stake doesnt necessarily make one a quality curator. What if you earned from your stake directly from 50% of the pool and the other 50% went towards votes?
Great thoughts again imho. However firstly i have a problem with bringing quality into a discussion relating to things like social media, art, taste, thinking etc. Considering that quality (art, thought) is not absolute and is in the eye of the beholder, ie. what i think is quality (thought, art etc) u may find utter rubbish and vv. Secondly i personally feel that reward is a much secondary concern when blurting, i mean it's just wonderful one might earn a reward and that will hopefully encourage more blurting. Whether a piece of BLURT (art, report or a thought etc) represents quality and earns good rewards can and will in the end imho only remain a mystery no matter how much one tries to game it. Hence if quality (art, thought) is a mystery then one can never game it and i happen 2 think quality is a mystery indeed
I agree. Otherwise we take risk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
Like free transactions, democracy itself is a lie.
Personally, I'm not a fan, but @birdinc floats this idea from time to time.
What are your issues with it? Also, what do you think about my reply to @koios in this thread?
This can be gamed by operating multiple accounts since KYC is not a prerequisite to participate on this platform.
To my understanding, author rewards ain't much about quality but more about nurturing strong bonds through social networking ....that's what being social means! Of course, people tend to network more with the one who deliver more qualty or value to them.