Maximum reward - A draft of a proposal
Draft because I will bring this topic only as a debate. I'm using the LEO tag also because it's something that affects the tribe's economy, so I believe it fits the theme, since I'm going to address the POB theme, but it can be used in other tribes as well, modifying the values here presented.
As this is a draft, nothing here is definitive, and everything can be changed according to the comments, leaving the idea started crossed out and the new writing.
Maximum reward
I want to treat the topic maximum reward as a value as being the ceiling for a publication to be of value.
"What do you mean? Do you want to impose how much a publication can or cannot receive?"
No. I think more of a figurative value that the community understands as a "spending ceiling".
Since currency issuance causes inflation (a priori, obviously there are many other factors), trying to reduce its issuance may be something to combat this problem.
"So if you don't have to, what good is it?"
Let's go to practical examples, as this makes viewing easier.
The value has to be something that doesn't affect content creators too much so as not to discourage them from continuing, but neither does its implementation make a difference.
In POB I see this value as 200 POB.
Very few publications manage to exceed this value, and when they do, they don't go much further. What I believe that this cut would not make so much difference to the author, thus not discouraging him to continue writing.
I thought it was a small portion of publications that reached above 200 POB, but @onealfa.pob brought the following image in the comments, showing that there is a small group that is always above this ceiling
Click on image to check in larger size
"But if it's not going to impose a limit, how would it be resolved?"
I can see in two ways.
One of them is the curation look. As a curator, when I see a publication that has already reached this value, I don't vote for it, and I try to spread my vote for other posts, thus diversifying the authors that will be part of the pool.
The other is positive Downvote. When seeing that a post exceeded this value, people could perform a Downvote so that it goes back to 200 giving a functionality for the Downvote that does not generate hate or retaliation.
Obviously this value of 200 could be replaced by any other value you find better in the comments.
Also there must be clear understanding of the proposal drafted,
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
i think there should be a way to reward writers i mean a fix reward for every content writer,but getting rids of fake and abusive content is necessary so i think this is where down vote is important, but i suggest that downvote should not reduce the reward but rather give signal to the admin to review the post and now judge the content if it is worthy of reward
I'm strongly agreed with you opinion especially those post that is creative and education it is never easy to write a post and you just see that the end of the day you end up with nothing ..that is not coursing at all
yes boss it is very discouraging,even before i write any post i do think twice but i just hope i see reward , but once there is fix reward for writers people will be ready and be willing to write any time
I like this!
At least first small steps against circle-jerkers. Count on my support on this route.
Are you serious? Very few? Don't go much further?
How about this:
[click for full size]
Only those posts above 230+ POB has been selected.
200+ POB they get on 95+% of their posts, no matter what's inside the post itself.
I thought it was much less, it is in fact I was wrong
Look. I like your draft. It's definitely not a method I've seen proposed yet in detail. I'd love to see one. Can you please also provide examples of what you feel are over-rewarded articles?
Honestly, I know it's putting you on the spot, but the biggest problem of these "over-rewarded" articles is a serious lack of objectivity. You read arguments about how:
I agree we need something in place, but we need the community to get behind it.
Thanks you for your time.
I used the term draft, as I still don't have a ready opinion on the subject, I believe the comments here can help me form an opinion. I don't know if limiting rewards is the right way. I could be completely wrong.
The idea came to my mind when I was re-reading a bill in Brazil called "Spending ceiling" that was used to limit a ceiling for public servants of 40 minimum wages as the highest salary to be paid.
Obviously there were loopholes, the judiciary received this ceiling as a payroll, but there are judges who receive up to 1,000 minimum wages per month using the excuse that this extra does not count as salary because they are necessary assistance such as: housing assistance, paleto assistance, sickness allowance (in case you get sick), and several other reasons they find to supplement their income.
Well, you should continue to refine it. You're not going to find all the loop holes. Payout limits. Not something I thought of myself. Looking forward to seeing the rest of the engagement in this post.
Get clarification on voting rules first. Trost's method of voting didn't work out as I don't believe 50% staked votes were even met.
Thanks for this important comment, I think that if we started talking about highly valued publications without offering truly valuable content, we would fall into the same old thing.
Must be my computer. I couldn't see anything. I'll try somewhere else.
Nope couldn't see it, but I did see the rewards. I tried ecency and peakd. Oh, those were only two authors?
He blurred the names of publications, presumably so there would be no retaliation, and left only the values showing.
Oh. I thought it was me lol
And here comes a small contest.
Be the first to guess who exactly were these two authors, (Author #1 and Author #2) in my screenshot above, and each right answer I will reward with 10 staked POB's. Let community know it's "heroes". :)
The two authors are myself, @calumam, and @lucylin.
For an example of an adequately rewarded post, please refer to the following link: an adequately rewarded post. 138'ish words
Only 0.64 pob/word? How unfortunate !
Compare to this
https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@calumam/the-trip-of-life
BTW, why do you not downvoted then?
I think the rewards for both our posts are relatively similar in terms of takeaway author rewards since I added a 50% beneficiary for @pob-fund.
Still, we're back to the matter of "what is deemed as over-rewarded?" and I did touch on that within the post you shared, highlighting that we can't read minds, so we cannot truly say what value it brings to others.
@scholaris used the metric of word count there to determine what is over-rewarded, but as you know with photography posts, that isn't always a good metric to use.
also, adequate;
Ugh I know. Word count works for some things, horrible for others. It's almost like we need an arsenal to address every angle.
I couldn't DV your article if I wanted to:
The article you cite presents an interesting conundrum. I don't know how to proceed. While 50% of the beneficiary goes to the POB fund, currently about 100 goes to the author. Funds going to the POB fund doesn't shield from the appearance.
I still like this article though. I've never read about payout limits. I'm going to take your idea and expand upon it. Instead of two authors, I'm going to do a wide range of people top-down. Ask the community to discuss. We need to narrow down the subjectivity of this rewards nonsense.
Everyone needs to get on a similar page so we can just focus on damn content creation.
You guys should make me understand why one content cannot have more than 200POB
I mean those who vote see it deserving, don't they?
Most of us don't vote based on rewards, we vote posts we have read and found it valuable
Also, I thought, the reason most posts gets more than enough votes is so that it can trend for more views on that particular post, probably, because of the message embedded in the article... I'm I wrong?
Wrong!
Because so many voting don't see that post at all ! Never!
Because the UV's goes out automatic, in whale's autovoting bots.
If you look closer, you will find that 90% of the low end upvoters brings only ~5% of the total reward.
At the same time 3-4 top whales bring 90-95% of all those massive rewards
And Most of that - in the autovoting mode, without even seing or reading the post.
Is this so hard to see and understand ???
Do you even know how and where to look, to find out how much and by whom each upvote has contributed?
Oh I understand that not everyone reads around here
And that most authors get rewarded by bots
Now, because of the privileges of being upvotes by the bots, some authors reduce their efforts to create deserving posts
They just churn out whatever they like, knowing that the bots will always serve them their rewards
For this folks, I think they deserve a DV
However, if there is an author who puts in the desire effort to come up with creative, educating, and thought-provoking articles, I think, he or she should be allowed to have his or her rewards even if its more than 200POB
question, where do I check if I want to see who one use votes and curate for one week or month interval? is that even possible in hive?
Please try and check out my opinion below @onealfa.pob
Still? I thought we were supposed to stop autovoting?
Yes, it is hard to see but not hard to understand.
It is difficult to easily see quickly how and when each person votes and how much they contribute without using queries. Speaking for many, we don't know.
Although I understand your idea, I don't like the Downvote part.
I also don't see a problem if a publication goes above 300 POB or more. If she deserved it and was truly worthy. Someone will not always win this.
So limiting how much a person earns is boring and I would be discouraged from continuing to write as they put a limit. And remembering that POB along with VIBES are one of the few tribes that few tokens have in circulation from large and well-known communities...
Taking advantage of the fact that @onealfa.pob is in the comments would be something contrary to the maximum vote he gives, for example, in LEO and which does not repeat more than 1x per month for the same user.
So writing, studying and putting together a nice post to be limited? This is boring.
Now I agree with the issue of many other posts being above this limit equal to the same @onealfa.pob posted. And simply when the content is very generic or being favored always the same... Unfortunately this happens.
That's why a few days ago I put up this proposal for curating posts that bring some kind of involvement and contest to the POB and that it's like a real POB. HERE.
As for the price, it is the market trend. The POB just adjusted its values that before were mere speculation. As long as there is a lack of real projects and causes for the tribe, we will not see values as high as before. Only if a whale decides to take an interest as it used to. But it will be soon.
I appreciate your concerns regarding inflation and suggestions to carry out a more pulled back approach with curation in the community. I don't think capping rewards at any number would be a good idea. I have some reasons and more to say and I don't usually shy away writing essay kind of comments 😅 But since this has came up in a few threads several times before and is something relevant to the whole community, I will write a post. 🧐
The thing is, people will always find a way to go around. You put 200 per post, they will write 2 posts per day, and still get the 400 they got now for a post. We need a better, more elegant solution. And not to forget, most of us are here for the money, and few of us are here for the fun and community.
Maybe a limit per user, from the other user curation, let's say monthly or weekly. like no more than X where X it is an acceptable majority voted value.
Maybe a limit per user, from the other user curation, let's say monthly or weekly. like no more than X where X it is an acceptable majority voted value.
We are in the early days of POB, and our annual inflation over the year coming will be in the hundreds of percent! This is the journey BTC took. Although percentage wise Inflation is reducing, absolute inflation will be constant until the first halvening.
I don't think it should be up to us to limit the amount an author gets. It smacks of income limiting. Is the post worth my vote or and how much of it? That is where my thought process ends. It wont bother me whether you get more than $30 for this post.
Thanks for this important topic the truth is that i don't really think it is better to write post. Cos the reward some people get does not usually correlate with effort spent in typing the post. I once discuss with someone who told me he loves posting but each time he post he always feel discourage and embarrassed because of the reward he do get from posting.
I have see a post today that someone post error and yet the person got 10pob just because of autovoting. I am even surprise that some that have high voting power still vote the content and this is the reason why i don't think autovoting is right. Check the post here to see reason why i think auto voting is wrong as well. Now compare it to a post like this having 1.54 pob. Tell me how do you expect someone like this to think of posting a meaningful post next time?
@vempromundo i second your opinion and i think something has to be done regarding this. I wish this my message can be sent to every other person as well.
Honestly the community can be discouraging to some creative writer.
Thanks for the words and for the alert, I already left a negative vote and a comment, to correct the rewards and obviously I supported the publication of @abimbola753, an excellent user of the community and regular of PobTalk
Whenever you see a post that the rewards are out of step, don't hesitate to tag me or even @onealfa.pob in it so we can fix it
200 is nice to get. I usually get less (but sometimes get more). It wouldn't bother me any if this was imposed, but I am not one to want to mess with the way things are. That said, if it becomes part of the culture I am quite alright with it... and I tend to vote that way already (but at 300).
My own personal opinion is to let the coins fall where the stake decides to put it... I also think your idea is not a bad one and I encourage you to run with it and see where it goes.
It's a topic that I brought up for debate, I don't know how it would be adhered to, I'm lately thinking about several situations to bring to the debate
It is a good discussion to have. Well done.
Hello everyone, I want to suggest that the maximum reward should be considered in USD fiat currency, not on POB. I wish POB reach $1 but what if it stays around 0.1 or 0.2$. Then you think 200 POB is very much amount. We can see Posts upto 100$ on hive and trending page. The community can decide the maximum amount, 50 or 100$ but my concern is it should be in usd. We don't know how pob price gonna change, so judging the amount of POB on a post is not fair. I also request the POB developers to add a option of displaying authors rewards in USD and POB both as we have in Leofinance. It's just my point of view, what say friends?
I strongly against measuring the limit in FIAT. Only in POB makes sense.
It is FAIR. And here is why.
I do not care at all, how many USD somebody on POB tribe will gain. The same way how I don't care (or envy), how many fiat dollars gain every day Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos.
According to POB algorithm, every day (24h) a 7200 new POB tokens are issued (24 x 6 x 50). This will stay so the next 3.5 years.
If calumam and lucylin together takes 10% of it (300+400) - does it seem fair to you ??? What if they start to post more than once a day? With enough support of their allies whales, they could reach even 20% or more.
How the newcomers to this tribe will feel seeing this ? Do you want this?
Reward pool is measured in POB. And the limit (if it will take place) should be measured also in POB
That's true, 👍. Over all it is a good proposal. We still though need to consider every aspect. It's a nice start to come up with draft and taking consideration from the community. It is a win win for all. It should be welcomed by the community, I am positive. 😊
Interesting proposal idea. We're definitely seeing a 150-200 POB baseline for the higher end posts at the moment, but that too will drop over time as more tokens are realised into the community. This highlights the need for some form of scaling basis if the limit was taken on board.
We're always going to fall into pitfalls if we look back at reward allocation from the past and compare it to the present (I recall yourself and madstacks having large rewards in the early days quite frequently and fortunately you're still around in the community), although it is important for us to weigh up multiple factors if we are going to judge based on post rewards alone.
Discussion about over-rewarded posts and what constitutes that is a good step forward. I think this was needed prior to @trostparadox's proposal about downvoting because it was an unanswered question that left some uncertainty in the air.
I agree, I made a similar suggestion years ago on Steemit. I would also suggest auto staking some of the earned POB when paying out. Auto stake will help with keeping POB off the sales market.
I think it's a good idea to set a max on rewards. It's fair to get rewards based on content, not on the number of followers or people that upvote you.
I also think it would be better when this will be handled technically instead of by the community via downvotes or better vote distribution. Stimulating better vote distribution is good, but won't solve the problem because of autovoting and voting trails. Downvoting when it is a quality post doesn't feel very well.
Isn't there a way to technically implement a ceiling?
Kudos to @vempromundo for drafting this and seeking debate and comments!
I will be upvoting the post to maximize engagement, even though the post is already above the draft 'ceiling' value of 200 POB.
In any event, I cannot say I have formed any significant thoughts or opinions on this issue, as of yet.
My main suggestion: I think we really need to clarify at the outset what behavior(s) we are wanting to influence.
That is necessary so we can play devil's advocate and identify the ways folks might be able to 'game' the system.
As @heruvim1978 pointed out here, an author taking what would have been published as a single post and publishing it as two posts easily circumvents the ceiling.
If circle-voting is the issue, then multiple posts also circumvents the intention behind the ceiling.
If the issue is trying to keep POB tokens from being consolidated by too few account holders, multiple accounts and/or multiple posts would be an easy work-around.
If the issue is 'over-rewarded' posts, then as @scholaris.pob pointed out here, we probably need to establish some objective standards first.
I have had some recent discussions with @scholaris about the 'over-reward' issue. I think he and I are in agreement that monitoring and policing of excess rewards needs to be at the community-level and needs to be based on some objective standards (i.e. an author should have some idea the 'max reward' his/her post will receive before publishing it; similarly, an upvoter should have some idea prior to upvoting whether his/her upvote is going to put a post beyond the community's standards for 'max reward').
A single 'max reward' per post is certainly very objective (which is good), but it fails to take into consideration other issues, such as length of post, effort associated with authoring the post, and the fact that sometimes rewards are given based on more than just the direct content of the post at hand (what I refer to as 'nuanced voting').
For example, I have upvoted @leprechaun's posts about his work on a new PoB front-end not because of the content of the posts themselves per se ,but because of all the behind-the-scenes efforts that are going into creating that new front-end.
Here is another example: @onealfa.pob gave a 100% upvote to a 40-word comment here with the promise of "owing [the commenter] a few more 100% UP's for that" -- based on his agreement with what was stated in those 40 words.
Maybe the community wants to put a stop to 'nuanced' upvoting, where the curator is voting for more than just the direct effort put into the content of the post at hand. If so, as I mentioned above, whatever behavior(s) we want to specifically disincentivize (i.e. penalize) should be clearly identified as a precursor to creating the associated 'rules' or protocols meant to influence those behaviors.
There is the model of Publish0x where you have only 5 votes daily, so limiting votes, but in the end it will only be a game of cat and mouse. There will always be some trying to go around the system, i think the education is the primary aim, with good curators consistently helping good publishers. If psychology helps, rewarding for good deeds always works better than punishing for bad ones.
While I completely agree that some people getting such high rewards everytime on their posts, no matter what they post, is wrong.
One day I was just going through the trending posts and trying to analyze what's in it that they are getting such heavy rewards and honestly, found some of them to be really absurd. I mean where I would not want to upvote at all. Again, that's a very subjective matter and I don't intend to disrespect either the author or the curators but we got to value the content that adds the most value.
That being said, I don't think capping is a really good idea because that would take away the charm of getting great upvotes. If I know the max I can get is this much, I would not put additional effort to get more. Some of us work really hard to get good upvotes and it's a great feeling to get a +100 POB upvote occasionally. And then the upvote value goes up to +150 sometimes. And it's so good to see that value rising. But if there's a cap on it, as an author, it would demotivate me to deliver good quality content.
it is an interesting idea I liked it and vote for it
Hey bro, I thought the initiative to address this topic was cool, and from what I read in the comments it generated a lot of engagement.
But, I completely disagree with a maximum value, in my opinion this would distort the perception of value about the token and the act of curating and authoring itself in a negative way, generating more problems arising from the distortion of supply and demand.
One thing we've learned in failed economies is that the more rules are enforced, the closer that economy tends to collapse.
Sounds truthful.
In general, I don't like such limiting rules either.
But, I just can not find what other solution could be effective against a malicious circle-jerk voting. Like the "circle" of lucylin-calumam-frot-richardcrill.
Especially in a situation, when even tribe's founder/owner is actively supporting it, and we are all limited to ONLY ONE full downvote per day.
Circle?
@richardcrill autovotes content and has been for months. He hasn't removed it even after your post.
@lucylin publishes good content, I vote. @frot posts good content, I vote. Maybe their personalities aren't your cup of tea, but I think they're a good laugh.
I also upvote people like... @hranhuk, @shubhwaj, @aiuna, @offgridlife, @sofs-su, @edystringz, @jaxsonmurph, @mineopoly, @thomashnblum, @melbourneswest, @revise.pob, @wiseagent, @alekst7, @clixmoney, @allcapsonezero, @elricmoonslayer, @sugandhaseth, @anacristinasilva, @dwinblood, @interpretation, @malopie, @katerinhernandez, @scholaris.pob @nonsowrites.pob, @trostparadox, @josediccus, @denmarkguy, @kemmyb, @captaincryptic, @thoughts-in-time, @phusionphil, @uwelang, @samsmith1971, @shepz1, @fireguardian, @memeisfun
(probably missing some, but it's quite the circle. https://hivestats.io/@calumam)
Now. Let's objectively define malicious.
Please, if you are able, can you state what harm is intended? I think some clarity on this would be important for the community.
I'm curious because I noticed your downvotes on @lucylin's comment votes as well as his posts. So some clarity on your definition of "malicious" would be fantastic. Not just for me, but so that the community can understand what is deemed as malicious so they're not hit by your downvote too.
You also removed my vote to @shubhwaj on this comment. The guy made a funny? 1.8 POB? Alright, seriously now, what's your definition of malicious?
Disagreement of rewards? Well, back it up. You seem to pick and choose who you downvote but still drop the occasional comment saying what is over-rewarded.
https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@onealfa.pob/qwhqqe#@onealfa.pob/qwkzew
so alfa, why do you not downvoted then?
P.S. with your definition and explanation about the malicious nature of the votes (which you'll obviously share, because you love replying to me), just so you don't throw your friend under the bus, @vempromundo is also followed by @richardcrill's autovote. He's supported by this "malicious circle-jerk voting" by proxy.
Ask yourself if you are reading along... is this unnecessary drama? or is this genuinely important since @onealfa is the #2 stakeholder on the platform?
Reason 1:
Reason 2:
I must carefully save my DV's for the most important cases, as I get ONLY ONE DV per day
Thx for mentioning chaps :-) - are we getting along with each other? Sorry i have not a lot time to follow all on the tribe
Me and Alfa are best pals. Just trying to get some clarity really, I didn't do very well in school and I'm wondering if my teachers were using a dodgy dictionary.
I'm sensing some very collectivist, cabal style (commie) negativity, pointed in my direction...lol.
It's really not a very good attitude - or look - for a 'free speech, web 3.0 platform ', now is it?
*posted a few hours ago in my comments...
Although , it does make for some excellent material for my upcoming 'welcome to hive' twitter campaign.
(The talent for large stakeholders to continually keep shooting themselves, knows no bounds).
"..I'll destroy the integrity of the hive platform with my own actions, and in so doing, I'll also reduce it's future potential token value - and my own wealth...and that's because I'm clever.."
Why twitter ?
(not just twitter)
....It's a way of down voting in the free market - is it not?.
...Very similar , in fact, to someone in a shop saying 'don't buy that, it's crap' - but without ever actually interfering with another persons actions.
I.e. totally unlike the downvoting mechanism , which rewards tyrannical behavior...(One so loved by the loser commie mindset of the bully).
Down voting is not a function of the free market.
It's funny...they always downvote, but never actually try to take me on and debate me instead ...and we all know why that is.
The
beatingsdown voting will continue until morale improves !!!lmfao....
Whatever is happening here I don't really understand, and I don't know where the problem is here. I hope this is just a debate that won't destroy the relationship. I don't know who is wrong and who is right. I just want to say thank you for mentioning me here.
It seems like they're debating more than anything. I find that people are quite passionate about governance on POB.
Yeah it seems like it, arguing for an idea to make the POB platform better is a good thing. As long as they don't argue that could ruin the friendship. And we all here have different opinions, so with a debate like this an idea will be born that can make the pob platform better.
I think not need to do downvote if anyone gets 300 pob on their post, but they just need to stake a portion of the pob. For example, if their post is 300 pob and when they claim it will be 150 pob. So they have to do staking 50 pob. lol
Personally, I think those two are beyond the point where they'll stop having conversations. I feel like they're professionals, to a degree. I've seen onealfa curb his position, as well as, calumam.
It's the nature of the system. You've got different people, across planetary regions and timezones, trying to communicate. Both literally have vested interests in the ecosystem and both have gained their experience via different methodologies. If drama didn't come out of their conversations, I would be surprised...and impressed too if I'm going to be honest.
I believe in @calumam. I also believe in onealfa and everyone else who chimes in with their honest opinion. Christ if it wasn't for cal's interactions I never would have invested in POB. If either of them didn't call out certain questionable behaviors we would have collapsed long ago. The drama is good because it is visible and above the surface. I would worry, if the drama became quiet and discussed in hushed tones.
The end result of that would be fatal.
The only malicious circle I'm part of!
How about you post one of those pictures of my pob voting trail?
Just who am I voting for again?
https://peakd.com/me/dashboard
thanks for being my number one fan!
I wonder how many of my 10 bots are up there too, I upvote comments but only with my main account.
In the back of my head with my current amount of Hive power I'm trying to buy everyone coffee everyday.
@darkflame and me have always treated this place like a coffee club and the goal is to get 1 upvote to be the cost of your coffee for the day.
That way we aren't aiming for minimum wage like some of the witnesses who want to live of the HDF.
@phusionphil! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @darkflame.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza (3/20)
View or trade
BEER.Hey @phusionphil, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @darkflame for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Wow, I also have 10 accounts doing autovoting, while I manually vote on this one, and a rep of 69 too... odd huh?
Yeah its messed up, I like most of your alt accounts, I checked a few out and from your Purple thing/art style could guestimate which were you.
some of my alt accounts are not purple!
Why are artists so sensitive about their palates lol
@frot! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @darkflame.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza (2/20)
View or trade
BEER.Hey @frot, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @darkflame for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Protectionist mindstates are not my cup of tea either.
I voted no on both of the Downvote proposals.
I also see things as black and white, and detest the mediation and middle ground ideology where everyone has to make a sacrifice, may as well quit and start their own communities without the socialism.
I would have a lot more POB if it wasn't for this debate, I was going to try to match you @onealfa.pob but that idea was dead on arrival as soon as I heard my downvoted would be moderated.
I understand your frustration and would be livid if I had not sold any POB, as well as bought more.
I don't think it would work either, but I was fascinated by the concept though. I couldn't help but read on. I agree with your other points too.
I didn't even see this post, I vote no to ceiling