We strongly depend on these few whales. If they don't vote on our posts, it basically failed. I personally have one post that is at 361 upvotes and worth 12 POB!
I don't have the perfect solution to this problem, but one thing I always ask my readers for is that when they see a quality publication, don't hesitate to mark me in the publication so that I can take my vote there. I recently made a post encouraging people who tag me in posts of this type, who would be rewarded with a percentage of my vote
It is not the best of solutions, but in the short term it is something I found for the moment
Just yesterday I saw an article that I found interesting and I took the care to tag some whales, following that example you proposed in an article days ago, just in case I didn't tag you because I think a colleague had already done it!
We are top-heavy. Meaning most of our rewards go to a small group of people.
Actually the curve is not that bad, better than most. Certainly better than Lassecash's disaster.
There is always going to be favored authors, but I would say {POB has a pretty decent curve considering. Curation on the other hand I think is a different story. You can see what I mean about that by looking at the staked tokens here:
As for 50/50 vs 75/25, I believe 50/50 is the fairest distribution. Even though authors appear to be doing "all the work", it's a lot harder to amass a good amount of stake than it is to write a blog post about what you had for lunch. Not only do you have to buy/earn a lot of stake, you got to spend time curating. I believe 50/50 provides an incentive for curators to be more benevolent and organic (although I agree this doesn't really happen as much as it should) rather than self serving.
Oh yeah. We definitely agree on Lasse. We already talked about this. :D
I'm probably biased since I'm earning more as a writer right now. :)
But it's a moot point, since I'm pretty sure changing the split wouldn't get the writers more value anyway.
So we agree. We should stay at 50/50.
Personally, I think there should be a slight tilt towards authors but maybe not 75/25. 60/40 or 67/33 maybe ?Curators could still earn roughly the same amount by spreading a bit more love if my math is right.
On the selling pressure, while I think it will increase in the short term, longer term, it will be better for the system. I've seen many examples in real life and on the blockchain, when whales have too much of one market, eventually they take their money to another market and that causes a crash.
One account was only there to comment. Another was just there to vote and a third was actually posting and creating. Such a weird network of multi-accounts, just to get away with self voting
I think I know which network you're referring to. A lot of rules that work in real life fail because of multi-accounts.
Would love to know too , it is important for everyone to talk about it .
I believe this is the informationvault, stemaddict, brainylady, joytheteacher, abundanceheart gang as they were doing something similar unless there's more than one going around. They seem to have left pob when asked for an explanation for their behavior.
First, let me say that I generally hate posts that just talk about POB (especially those that just talk about the token, and its valuation, and predicting its future valuation).
However, posts that are touching on important issues that the community should be discussing get my attention (as they should) and get my upvotes (because that is the best way to get the broadest audience and thus the richest discussion).
And, generally, I would refrain from upvoting a post that is essentially an expanded comment to a previous post on the same topic.
However, I too, have started writing a comment, then found it too important (in my eyes, anyway) to leave it as 'just a comment'; so, I made it a post and referenced the 'inspiration' from the original post (much the way you have done).
The fact that you clearly link back to the original post, and the fact that you are proposing additional solutions to be discussed, makes it potentially worthy of its own set of discussion comments. In light of this, I have decided to make an exception (to my normal approach) and upvote this post as well.
And, it is good that you are taking this action after some introspection and self-evaluation, and that you are calling yourself out for your 'hypocrisy':
The irony of me making this post after my roast is not lost on me. This post could have been a comment. But comments don't pay as well, as posts. So here I go, being a hypocrite for the coin. I regret nothing!
I agree with your sentiment that content creators deserve more:
I think creators deserve 75% of the rewards with my whole heart.
However, I also agree with your caution:
Don't touch what's working.
Right now we are struggling with the reality that it is really hard to create a truly 'proof of brain' rewards system. Steem tried -- and failed. Hive tried -- and is struggling. POB is trying -- and (arguably) is doing better than any of its predecessors.
Will we ever achieve perfection in that effort?Ā Ā I doubt it.
Can we do better?Ā Ā Probably.
Will we know up front what changes will be for the better and what changes will move us backwards?Ā Ā No!
However, we do have the history of Steem and Hive to (hopefully) keep us from repeating some of their mistakes.
In any event, making major changes when a new launch is doing better than its predecessors (although still not ideal), should be approached with the utmost of caution.
With that said, I plan to launch an experiment of sorts in the coming weeks that will (perhaps) provide a both-and solution. As I've alluded to previously, what I am planning will be designed to enhance and support the value of POB.
If my experiment flops, it should provide some valuable insight to this community in the process. If my experiment succeeds, it should enable a parallel value-creation pattern to emerge within this community (and potentially draw additional investors to the community).
What are the odds of success of my new experiment? I currently put them around 50/50 (which means the average 'outsider' would probably put them at less than 10%).
I teach entrepreneurship at my university and one of the definitions of entrepreneurship that I teach my students is:
entrepreneurship is when you think you're right and most everyone else thinks you're wrong (see Mark Casson's The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory).
If most everyone else thinks you're right, then either it's already been done before, or it's trivial.
Entrepreneurship requires action -- action that others eschew because the endeavor is wrought with uncertainty.
I believe that the differential of our community, is that the holders of great votes, are constantly trying to listen to the community and adapt to it, I believe that in the long term, if we have a good engagement, the token will value itself.
We will not always get our decisions right, but if we show that we are willing to fix standards that are no longer pleasing to the community, it is a big step towards transparency and evolution.
Thanks for your input. I'm excited to see, what you've come up with. I can't even guess, since you're going to implement it on a parallel. Guess, I'll have to wait and see.
I'm also aware of you profession, since I read a post from one of your students a couple weeks ago.
I'm actually writing my bachelor thesis on leadership in start-up companies.
One of the four attributes that define a startup in my work is a situation of uncertainty. (Newness,innovation and growth-orientation being the other 3)
One of the four attributes that define a startup in my work is a situation of uncertainty.
My dissertation for my Entrepreneurship PhD examined the way entrepreneurs perceive and manage uncertainty. From my perspective, bearing uncertainty is the quintessential aspect of entrepreneurship. This is, of course, not a new perspective. Richard Cantillon first made the connection between uncertainty and entrepreneurship in the 1720s.
When the trending / hot / new page is full of posts talking just about POB, I'm out - moving my attention to reading posts from other communities. If 361 people found your post valuable that is fantastic. I also had a post that got 516 upvotes and tons of comments with 56 POB, so what? If writing that post connects you with another human being and you become friends, bingo. If that post brings you closer to a new client, bingo. I know people here obsess about tokenomics, however this "game" just like the game of life, goes way beyond tokenomics & money.
If I see a post that hasn't gotten much POB, I will assume it to be bad. I might not even open it up, even if the title sounds interesting.
This is why I started my "contest". For this kind of posts with no votes. Anyway, I think that the one who looks at the posts in the way you are describing is thinking more about the rewards than the content of the post. Why should the amount of reward be the reason to read a post?
"Why should the amount of reward be the reason to read a post?"
Because currently that's the only metric we get. I don't have the time to read 20 posts in the new page. That's why I'm proposing to show us the amount of views and votes to be able to pick posts based on something else.
Really good analysis, bro!
I agree with everything you've said here apart from the 'Don't Show us the voters' thing. I'd say it is really important for transparency that the voters are shown, the amount of foul play not showing the voters can open up like you fear is so much that it trumps the advantages you've mentioned here.
You've made a lot of wonderful points @antonym and it's definitely nothing, but the truth. Regarding the display of names of those who upvote a particular post, i think that might not really work well since these names will also display on the hive interphase.
So my take on this is to leave the names, but never show the value of upvote for each names. Those who voted will be able to see the value of their own upvote, but won't be able to see the value of others as well.
Regarding the aspect of receiving an upvote from a curation trail that shows no appreciable #pob value, most of these votes are from the hive interphase. This still bulge down to my previous point suggesting the removal of pob values of the voting individuals. Though the total amount of pob earned on the post will remain displayed.
It's smart on your part and even more so when you admit that you want a bit of pop from turning it into an article, I hope to see a little more content on these discussions which you initiate. So I think others will have the opportunity to use your articles when it comes to discussing something that concerns the community.
As for not showing who votes, I think it is a terrible idea, it lends itself to a murky competition, I think that showing who votes for you is a double-edged sword that should never be changed.
As for the number of votes with zero value, it has touched me, and I feel that it is a phenomenon that little by little becomes common, I think I have reached just over 400 votes in an article and its value was never more than $ 3, I think that although we are looking to have a population economy, the eggs should not be 100% in a canazta, this is not what I mean by having little commitment, on the contrary since I mean having a commitment very similar to when you started riding Bicycle as a child, you did not do it for money but for fun, this works in an abysmal way, when you do something for fun or passion, money comes alone.
I think creators deserve 75% of the rewards with my whole heart
I favor 50/50 because it takes a lot of time ( or money ) to increase our POB stake or any other tribe token stake so curation of 25% isn't very attractive to investors .
I personally have one post that is at 361 upvotes and worth 12 POB!
I feel you . In the initial days I used to put a lot of effort and there was no rewards for them at all .
It takes a lot of time to gain attention on any tribe I suppose . A good post gets good rewards isn't necessary the way here , a good consistency pays good rewards is the way to go .
Show us the views.
This was my first suggestion to Khal ( on Leo discord ) . Let's say a particular post doesn't attract the the eyes of POB community but brings a lot of traffic , that should be rewarded right?
Don't show us the voters
This is something I don't agree with . I support complete transparency , the problems are user created , we gotto solve them through other ways . It might just lead to more issues .
Overall , I like the discussion and the points you mentioned . This is one of the reason I post data and statistics every now and then to be honest , I want to bring transparency to the community . I want to show people what's going on and also help them get some insight .
Feel free to ask me for any data which helps to prove your points or the suggestions you are trying to make . I may not completely agree with your opinions but every single time I will be ready to give you the data from the blockchain related to your opinion .
Thanks. I enjoy reading your data posts. I'm a numbers person and it's always interesting to learn more.
Currently I'm mostly interestend in views. Are they actually completely unknown to us ? There are so many data sites like hivestats and hiveblock. You're here much longer than I am. Do you know of a way to check views for certain posts?
The distribution of wealth should be larger than other platforms. That makes the platform has value. When wealth distribution is among few circles, new members are like begging for upvotes for the whales. That is not ideal model.
When more wealthy accounts exist in POB, earning from hive is widely open for new members that start from zero power. As we know that most new members are starting with zero power. They join to earn. if they have no wide opportunities in this platform, sooner or later, they will leave this platform and the tokens will have no value in the market.
This is my first time reading about this 75/25 debate and I agree with you wholeheartedly!
I've been here for a short time, but from what I can muster, POB will diversify as it grows, soon there will be curation for most, and there always will be big whales and big authors with big rewards, but I also see the little sardine voting without giving much thought to the whole economic aspect of it.
I guess this is the better discussion, how to make POB a mainstream social network, where there are so many curators, there will be enough for all authors... Maybe the debate shouln't be about 75/25, but about 25/75, to attract more curators/investors, as well as to improve the research tools and the amount of info that is shown, like you mentioned.
It's just an ideia...
I don't know the answer, but I'm confident we'll get there!
I don't have the perfect solution to this problem, but one thing I always ask my readers for is that when they see a quality publication, don't hesitate to mark me in the publication so that I can take my vote there. I recently made a post encouraging people who tag me in posts of this type, who would be rewarded with a percentage of my vote
It is not the best of solutions, but in the short term it is something I found for the moment
Just yesterday I saw an article that I found interesting and I took the care to tag some whales, following that example you proposed in an article days ago, just in case I didn't tag you because I think a colleague had already done it!
Actually the curve is not that bad, better than most. Certainly better than Lassecash's disaster.
There is always going to be favored authors, but I would say {POB has a pretty decent curve considering. Curation on the other hand I think is a different story. You can see what I mean about that by looking at the staked tokens here:
As for 50/50 vs 75/25, I believe 50/50 is the fairest distribution. Even though authors appear to be doing "all the work", it's a lot harder to amass a good amount of stake than it is to write a blog post about what you had for lunch. Not only do you have to buy/earn a lot of stake, you got to spend time curating. I believe 50/50 provides an incentive for curators to be more benevolent and organic (although I agree this doesn't really happen as much as it should) rather than self serving.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Oh yeah. We definitely agree on Lasse. We already talked about this. :D
I'm probably biased since I'm earning more as a writer right now. :)
But it's a moot point, since I'm pretty sure changing the split wouldn't get the writers more value anyway.
So we agree. We should stay at 50/50.
Personally, I think there should be a slight tilt towards authors but maybe not 75/25. 60/40 or 67/33 maybe ?Curators could still earn roughly the same amount by spreading a bit more love if my math is right.
On the selling pressure, while I think it will increase in the short term, longer term, it will be better for the system. I've seen many examples in real life and on the blockchain, when whales have too much of one market, eventually they take their money to another market and that causes a crash.
I think I know which network you're referring to. A lot of rules that work in real life fail because of multi-accounts.
If curators vote 100% for 1 person or 50% for 2 persons or 33% for 3 persons , they will get same curation rewards so yes you are right :)
Would love to know too , it is important for everyone to talk about it .
I believe this is the informationvault, stemaddict, brainylady, joytheteacher, abundanceheart gang as they were doing something similar unless there's more than one going around. They seem to have left pob when asked for an explanation for their behavior.
First, let me say that I generally hate posts that just talk about POB (especially those that just talk about the token, and its valuation, and predicting its future valuation).
However, posts that are touching on important issues that the community should be discussing get my attention (as they should) and get my upvotes (because that is the best way to get the broadest audience and thus the richest discussion).
And, generally, I would refrain from upvoting a post that is essentially an expanded comment to a previous post on the same topic.
However, I too, have started writing a comment, then found it too important (in my eyes, anyway) to leave it as 'just a comment'; so, I made it a post and referenced the 'inspiration' from the original post (much the way you have done).
The fact that you clearly link back to the original post, and the fact that you are proposing additional solutions to be discussed, makes it potentially worthy of its own set of discussion comments. In light of this, I have decided to make an exception (to my normal approach) and upvote this post as well.
And, it is good that you are taking this action after some introspection and self-evaluation, and that you are calling yourself out for your 'hypocrisy':
I agree with your sentiment that content creators deserve more:
However, I also agree with your caution:
Right now we are struggling with the reality that it is really hard to create a truly 'proof of brain' rewards system. Steem tried -- and failed. Hive tried -- and is struggling. POB is trying -- and (arguably) is doing better than any of its predecessors.
Will we ever achieve perfection in that effort?Ā Ā I doubt it.
Can we do better?Ā Ā Probably.
Will we know up front what changes will be for the better and what changes will move us backwards?Ā Ā No!
However, we do have the history of Steem and Hive to (hopefully) keep us from repeating some of their mistakes.
In any event, making major changes when a new launch is doing better than its predecessors (although still not ideal), should be approached with the utmost of caution.
With that said, I plan to launch an experiment of sorts in the coming weeks that will (perhaps) provide a both-and solution. As I've alluded to previously, what I am planning will be designed to enhance and support the value of POB.
If my experiment flops, it should provide some valuable insight to this community in the process. If my experiment succeeds, it should enable a parallel value-creation pattern to emerge within this community (and potentially draw additional investors to the community).
What are the odds of success of my new experiment? I currently put them around 50/50 (which means the average 'outsider' would probably put them at less than 10%).
I teach entrepreneurship at my university and one of the definitions of entrepreneurship that I teach my students is:
If most everyone else thinks you're right, then either it's already been done before, or it's trivial.
Entrepreneurship requires action -- action that others eschew because the endeavor is wrought with uncertainty.
I believe that the differential of our community, is that the holders of great votes, are constantly trying to listen to the community and adapt to it, I believe that in the long term, if we have a good engagement, the token will value itself.
We will not always get our decisions right, but if we show that we are willing to fix standards that are no longer pleasing to the community, it is a big step towards transparency and evolution.
Thanks for your input. I'm excited to see, what you've come up with. I can't even guess, since you're going to implement it on a parallel. Guess, I'll have to wait and see.
I'm also aware of you profession, since I read a post from one of your students a couple weeks ago.
I'm actually writing my bachelor thesis on leadership in start-up companies.
One of the four attributes that define a startup in my work is a situation of uncertainty. (Newness,innovation and growth-orientation being the other 3)
My dissertation for my Entrepreneurship PhD examined the way entrepreneurs perceive and manage uncertainty. From my perspective, bearing uncertainty is the quintessential aspect of entrepreneurship. This is, of course, not a new perspective. Richard Cantillon first made the connection between uncertainty and entrepreneurship in the 1720s.
When the trending / hot / new page is full of posts talking just about POB, I'm out - moving my attention to reading posts from other communities. If 361 people found your post valuable that is fantastic. I also had a post that got 516 upvotes and tons of comments with 56 POB, so what? If writing that post connects you with another human being and you become friends, bingo. If that post brings you closer to a new client, bingo. I know people here obsess about tokenomics, however this "game" just like the game of life, goes way beyond tokenomics & money.
This is why I started my "contest". For this kind of posts with no votes. Anyway, I think that the one who looks at the posts in the way you are describing is thinking more about the rewards than the content of the post. Why should the amount of reward be the reason to read a post?
Your contest is great!
"Why should the amount of reward be the reason to read a post?"
Because currently that's the only metric we get. I don't have the time to read 20 posts in the new page. That's why I'm proposing to show us the amount of views and votes to be able to pick posts based on something else.
If I remember correctly there was a time on Steemit that you could see the amount of views a post had had regardless of the amount of votes.
I don't think removing the monetary value would be good but it might be interesting to add the amount of views.
š I've had a lot of free time lately.
Thank you!
Yeah. That seems to be the consensus.
I hope, this will turn into something and we will be able to see the views in the near future.
Not only worth a full post, but also a very distinct analysis! thank you!
Really good analysis, bro!
I agree with everything you've said here apart from the 'Don't Show us the voters' thing. I'd say it is really important for transparency that the voters are shown, the amount of foul play not showing the voters can open up like you fear is so much that it trumps the advantages you've mentioned here.
You've made a lot of wonderful points @antonym and it's definitely nothing, but the truth. Regarding the display of names of those who upvote a particular post, i think that might not really work well since these names will also display on the hive interphase.
So my take on this is to leave the names, but never show the value of upvote for each names. Those who voted will be able to see the value of their own upvote, but won't be able to see the value of others as well.
Regarding the aspect of receiving an upvote from a curation trail that shows no appreciable #pob value, most of these votes are from the hive interphase. This still bulge down to my previous point suggesting the removal of pob values of the voting individuals. Though the total amount of pob earned on the post will remain displayed.
Thanks for the great insight once again @antonym
It's smart on your part and even more so when you admit that you want a bit of pop from turning it into an article, I hope to see a little more content on these discussions which you initiate. So I think others will have the opportunity to use your articles when it comes to discussing something that concerns the community.
As for not showing who votes, I think it is a terrible idea, it lends itself to a murky competition, I think that showing who votes for you is a double-edged sword that should never be changed.
As for the number of votes with zero value, it has touched me, and I feel that it is a phenomenon that little by little becomes common, I think I have reached just over 400 votes in an article and its value was never more than $ 3, I think that although we are looking to have a population economy, the eggs should not be 100% in a canazta, this is not what I mean by having little commitment, on the contrary since I mean having a commitment very similar to when you started riding Bicycle as a child, you did not do it for money but for fun, this works in an abysmal way, when you do something for fun or passion, money comes alone.
Good morning @antonym . A very good post .
I favor 50/50 because it takes a lot of time ( or money ) to increase our POB stake or any other tribe token stake so curation of 25% isn't very attractive to investors .
I feel you . In the initial days I used to put a lot of effort and there was no rewards for them at all .
It takes a lot of time to gain attention on any tribe I suppose . A good post gets good rewards isn't necessary the way here , a good consistency pays good rewards is the way to go .
This was my first suggestion to Khal ( on Leo discord ) . Let's say a particular post doesn't attract the the eyes of POB community but brings a lot of traffic , that should be rewarded right?
This is something I don't agree with . I support complete transparency , the problems are user created , we gotto solve them through other ways . It might just lead to more issues .
Overall , I like the discussion and the points you mentioned . This is one of the reason I post data and statistics every now and then to be honest , I want to bring transparency to the community . I want to show people what's going on and also help them get some insight .
Feel free to ask me for any data which helps to prove your points or the suggestions you are trying to make . I may not completely agree with your opinions but every single time I will be ready to give you the data from the blockchain related to your opinion .
Thanks. I enjoy reading your data posts. I'm a numbers person and it's always interesting to learn more.
Currently I'm mostly interestend in views. Are they actually completely unknown to us ? There are so many data sites like hivestats and hiveblock. You're here much longer than I am. Do you know of a way to check views for certain posts?
Hello antonym. I am sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Lack of time , have a lot to catch up .
So yeah see whatever we see on POB frontend or any other frontend is retrieved from Hive blockchain right ?
Votes , reputation , comments , post , post creation time etc etc
All of this is stored in one way or other on Hive Blockchain.
But the views a particular post gets isn't stored on Hive . So it is not possible to retrieve that at all.
We have to use external sites like Alexa or some other SEO tracker site to check the views.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The distribution of wealth should be larger than other platforms. That makes the platform has value. When wealth distribution is among few circles, new members are like begging for upvotes for the whales. That is not ideal model.
When more wealthy accounts exist in POB, earning from hive is widely open for new members that start from zero power. As we know that most new members are starting with zero power. They join to earn. if they have no wide opportunities in this platform, sooner or later, they will leave this platform and the tokens will have no value in the market.
This is my first time reading about this 75/25 debate and I agree with you wholeheartedly!
I've been here for a short time, but from what I can muster, POB will diversify as it grows, soon there will be curation for most, and there always will be big whales and big authors with big rewards, but I also see the little sardine voting without giving much thought to the whole economic aspect of it.
I guess this is the better discussion, how to make POB a mainstream social network, where there are so many curators, there will be enough for all authors... Maybe the debate shouln't be about 75/25, but about 25/75, to attract more curators/investors, as well as to improve the research tools and the amount of info that is shown, like you mentioned.
It's just an ideia...
I don't know the answer, but I'm confident we'll get there!
Thanks for you post!