RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
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.
It totally opens fun stuff like people parking their DVs on their alts or even self-DVing (to avoid either offending the crowd by DVing decent posts or "wasting" time to find actual DV-material) but decent rulesets seem to exist to keep things reasonable.
The real issue could be implementation. I am not really familiar with details of the way the code calculates the amounts but the fact that the post is supposed to take different amounts off the pool for author and curators might be a problem. Although I suppose you can always take out the same amount off the pool for both and then return the excess from the author side (generated by DVs) even without skewing the 50/50 split, the HBD haircut implementation thread taught me the code change could be more complex than expected.
Haha have a reverse burn post. Everyone park their downvotes there and create the most negative rep account there is.
Very interesting.
Yes, should be possible: first calculate the amount every curator had become, and then add/subtract the same percentage to/from everybody which you need to add/subtract that author and curators receive altogether the same amount.
I am not really sure what your method calculates as the description is too comprimed for me. I am picking the most readable part and expect you to elaborate in case I read it wrong / drew wrong conclusions.
I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount. That is what happens right now and that is the exact reason the DVing is OP.
A post that gets 95 worth of downvotes and 105 worth of upvotes pays out 10 total (5 author, 5 curators combined). The vision is to pay out 105 total - assign 105+95=200 from DAO, pay out (105-95)/2=5 to author, (105+95)/2=100 to curators and return the balance (95) back to DAO.
That way, upvoting a post that has (is going to have) DVs on it pays out full curation reward. Not 5/105=5 % of the par reward like Hive 25.0 does (easily reachable via UVing something noone reads / bothers to DV)
That is Step 1 (letting people know they can UV someone that is under a deplatforming attack). More tweaks are necessary in order to get a good value discovery, but the above is an improvement to the current system on its own.
That's why I thought you would mean or at least consider it:
Aber Englisch ist nicht meine Muttersprache.
Wie dem auch sei, den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen und den Curationreward vom 'Votegewicht' des Votenden, ist eine sehr interessante Idee.
Dein English ist besser als mein Deutsch.
I never proposed that. Anyone can run thousands of accounts. There are ways to counter that but I do not consider them viable (some inadequate, others unwanted). I support DPoS despite most other DPoS fans make me feel embarassed.
I admit that was my turn to keep it too short. Let me elaborate. With incentivised DVs, you can expect everyone to use it as much as they use UVs. If we keep the current 4-1 ratio (not sure we should), we can expect an average post of 100 curated to end up at 60 value (80 worth of UV and 20 worth of DV).
Leaving it like that would mean nerfing authors'cut. Effectively, we introduced a new balance of 62.5/37.5 Curators/Authors' cut.
To avoid skewing the 50/50 split, we can change the DAO payout to 62.5/37.5 Authors/Curators. The abovementioned post that attracted 100 rewards (80 UV rewards + 20 DV rewards) gives 37.5 to Curators (37.5% of 100), 37.5 to Author (62.5% of 60) and returns 25 back to DAO. That way the 50/50 split is kept in the macro perspective.
Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.
Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.
I do not think FREE is a correct term for either so I do not think I can conclude anything useful from the formalism.
Why would you do that? If XYZ was harmful, zero would be the better value. Otherwise, why not nerf it to three quarters or 0.31?
In the original system, your UPVOTE bar could be used up by UPVOTING (OR) by DOWNVOTING.
You could choose to DOWNVOTE but that would reduce your total available UPVOTE.
After HF21, a FREE DOWNVOTE bar was added, so you could DOWNVOTE with NO PENALTY.
I am familiar with the system even though it was no longer in use when I arrived.
I am not cluttering up this thread discussing what FREE means to different people. What you wrote was not even related to my text you quoted (which is hugely appreciated) so I am not really the right person to address it anyway.
If you need me to elaborate on my previous comment, tag me in a quiet corner of Hive and I can try.