SBI in an HF21 World - Part 2: Convergent Linear & Downvote Pools

in #hf215 years ago

Introduction

Much has already been said about HF21 and the EIP by other Steemians. We may have been premature about the level of consensus; maybe it will not actually happen. Initially I was in favor of the EIP, but the deeper I dig the more I think that it's a distraction that won't have any of the intended effects.

Last week we focused on the impact from the change to 50/50 curation rewards. Each of our value streams already passes through curation rewards one way or another, and will continue to do so with minimal impact on total value members receive over time.

SBI Logo design by @roldamn

In today's post, we explore convergent linear rewards and downvoting pools. We talk about the role of personal responsibility in a decentralized world, and about why we don't think the changes will have any positive impact.

What is Quality?


The most unpredictable impact of HF21 is how large stakeholders will manage their new downvote pools, and surviving in the new ecosystem will require a higher level of individual awareness about how much ‘quality’ your own material has.

Quality is a highly subjective characteristic, not an inherent attribute. The reward protocol of Steem is designed around 'Proof of Brain' ... the idea that the curation incentives will encourage the rewarding of quality content, and people that 'prove their brain' receive the most rewards from the pool.

The inherent flaw to this logic is that everybody perceives quality differently. There are 'cult classic' TV series with strong followings that were cut in their first season due to low viewership. Did they lack quality or did it just take too long for people to realize the quality was there all along.

With respect to blockchain... quality is defined and codified as the content that attracts the most stake-weighted votes.

The Downvote Pools


People decry the breakdown in proof of brain because they disagree with the quality of the most-rewarded content, but they don't cast dissenting votes either.

Dissenting votes are a critical part to establishing consensus on what material is 'quality' and should be rewarded. The EIP tries to resolve this by removing the economic 'opportunity costs' of casting dissenting votes. Even with the economic cost removed, the social costs (risks of retaliation and reputational damage) will remain just as high.

Whether consensus is improved by a rise in dissenting votes depends as much on a removal of the social costs as it does on removal of the economic costs. Downvotes are extremely unpopular and frequently described as 'stealing rewards from content' - instead of as mere votes against the existing consensus rewards level. This makes it unlikely that the social costs of downvoting will be removed along with the economic costs.

Removing the economic costs will result in substantially more downvoting from those willing to bear the social costs (people with well-established reputations that will be assumed to be in the right) and people that don't have social costs (people with well-established 'bad' reputations that have nothing to lose).

Graphics by @katysavage

Convergent Linear


Along with downvote pools and 50/50 curation, the third piece of the puzzle is convergent linear. Based on the initial parameters that I have seen in the github (the release is not packaged yet, so this may be totally different if it actually comes out), post payouts will start at roughly 1/2 their current levels until they reach about $0.10. From there, they will converge upward toward linear, though linear is never quite reached.

This means that whatever your normal vote values are, you can always add 'extra value' to your existing payouts by tacking on additional votes... even if those votes otherwise come at break-even (no built-in profit).

Convergent Linear and SBI


What does this mean for Steem Basic Income? While your payouts per rshares value received may be consistently lower under the EIP, actual change in your rewards will be amplified by your relative positioning.

The actual impact on your upvote values will depend on the payout of your post relative to all other posts.

Since the median payout is below the $0.10 threshold mentioned, just getting onto the slope will be enough for each additional vote to amplify the value of your existing votes and reduce the impact of the EIP on your post payouts.

You may receive less total rewards on each post, but you need Steem Basic Income (and any other promotion strategies you follow) even more: to get your post onto the upward sloping curve and amplify the value of all the organic votes that you receive.

(SBI Token design by @thekittygirl)

Personal Responsibility


Here is where the downvote pools come back into the picture. The only check on buying every possible vote you can for every post is the free downvote pools. If downvoting becomes accepted and prevalent, then promoting your content too high up the curve will result in downvotes that negate the boost you received from climbing up the curve.

It is the personal responsibility of every Steemian to evaluate the quality of their content with one simple question: Will this post attract more upvotes than downvotes? If you believe that you will attract more stake-weighted downvotes than upvotes, then posting will damage your reputation, and you probably should do it.

If you over-promote the post, then attracting more eyeballs will tip the scales and also result in more downvotes than upvotes. If downvotes are only made by those that don't care about social costs, then you have to be even more careful - because people that think you're 'abusing the reward pool' (by their own standards) will not just downvote a single post, they may attempt to destroy your account.

Summary Conclusion


With 50/50, we were able to easily compare the current mechanics with the new and identify that the rshares value that Steem Basic Income delivers to each post will modify in a way that the member share of those rshares is constant or even improves.

With Convergent Linear and downvote pools, we are no longer looking at the rshares that you receive, but at the conversion of those rshares into rewards. The potential outcomes range from a worst-case scenario of "same as now only worse" to "better than ever before". The results depend on how optimistic you are about people's responses, along with which outcomes you would consider to be better or worse (also quality values judgments). What's clear is that the actual outcome is completely unpredictable.

While I initially supported the proposal, the deeper analysis I have made leading up to this post has convinced me that the likelihood of it improving anything that people claim it is intended to improve is extremely low. The EIP is a red herring, a distraction from more important development, an experiment in bad tokenomics.

If it does happen, the need for regular Steem Basic Income support on your content will be even greater than before, as a sufficient level of support will give you greater resilience to the prospect of attack.

It's not the conclusion that I expected to write, and I hope that if the EIP happens the best in people overcomes the broken incentives and Steem becomes a little more civil. I am not as optimistic as I was last week after writing part one.

Enrollment


If you want to join, or to increase the level of basic income to which you are subscribed, enrollment is pretty straightforward:

Just send 1 STEEM to @steembasicincome. Include the name of a Steemian to sponsor in the transaction memo (preceded by @). You and the person you sponsor will each receive 1 unit in the program. You can sponsor any active Steemian, it does not have to be a current member.

If you're unclear, please check out our full transaction memo guidelines and then let us know if you have any questions.
https://steemit.com/busy/@steembasicincome/transaction-memo-guidelines

The official currency for enrollment is STEEM. If we choose to accept SBD without refunding it, you do not receive extra value for it.

Enrollments are processed automatically every 144 minutes.

Questions about Steem Basic Income?


Please read our recently published FAQ. Most questions are addressed in our FAQ or in the additional resources that it suggests. If you still have questions, ask in the comments section or join us in our discord channel.

Sort:  

the deeper analysis I have made leading up to this post has convinced me that the likelihood of it improving anything that people claim it is intended to improve is extremely low.

Glad to see you coming around on this.

Definitely agree! Even if people are rewarded for downvoting the social cost is still very real. Does anyone honestly think people aren’t downvoting because they fear losing a cent or two? If we could make voting anonymous downvotes might start being used but short of that nothing will do it I think.

Posted using Partiko iOS

One thing that I expect to happen if the EIP goes through is anonymous downvoting via bid-bot (with an equilibrium price much lower than the price of an upvote, since supply is high and demand will still be low). That removes social costs, but replaces them with economic costs again. In those circumstances, who will pay the economic costs?
It's rhetorical... at some price there will be demand, but it most likely would not be for the good of Steem.

deeper analysis I have made leading up to this post has convinced me that the likelihood of it improving anything that people claim it is intended to improve is extremely low. The EIP is a red herring, a distraction from more important development, an experiment in bad tokenomics.

This X2

You agree X2 but still downvoted the post?

been a member here a bit over 1 year and many have done 5 downvots. and yes am scared of the back fire. removing the cost is a good ide. but we will se it its going to help. in a perfect world SBI could have the ability to stop to up vote on spam posts. but it to much to ask. a know its a black list but its all what am feeling is a weak posts. a feel to get users to understand the inporten of a good post, and not the one photo no source or text on it. if they dont get $$ on it its going to die out. so early on is key. its always going to be some bad eggs out there. exciting time now see if they can inprove on how we use down vots

System design that requires a perfect world is bad design.

A good design takes bad actors and forces them to be good. A bad design takes good actors and pushes them to be bad.

People don't like change. I'm all for it HF21 as long as there is adequate warning and time to prep. Downvoting is the only questionable idea, what if there's is a steembasicliability SBL where you can sign people up for automatic downvotes? Although this is silly right now, it may not be with freedownvotes. I think this change could push may away from Steem if they are being bullied. I know I'd start powering down and leave if I were victim of such nonsense.

Posted using Partiko Android

What kind of a person subscribes somebody else for regular downvotes? Do you want that person to be the one gaining dominance on Steem?

I just hope such a market doesn't arise where people are selling their downvotes. It's going to be bad news for spammers, abusers, mistaggers and beggars- not that I mind.

Posted using Partiko Android

Being bad news for bad actors would be a good outcome, in my opinion.

My concern is that if there is massive mispricing between upvotes and downvotes, then major upvote sellers might buy anonymous downvotes to encourage more purchasing of upvotes in order to counter it.

Particularly, if the price of downvotes is less than the profit margin of upvote sellers, that's an extremely likely outcome.

@crypticat, there s plenty of people I see around who are already powering down... and I was curious why. seems the things are already bad, and only getting more and more worse :/

For every seller there is a buyer. Steem is getting better in my opinion as Steemit losses its grip and others take charge. High prices are bad for adoption, so is this bid bot nonsense where people pay for large upvotes on junk and profit. I'm glad people powered down and I bought most of my Steem in the 30s and 40s. Had everyone powered up I would have a lot less SP.

Posted using Partiko Android

Unfortunately down voting is too easily abused by high stake users where they can effectively ban by auto downvote users/accounts they disagree with. Yes, there are many spam accounts that exist, but it is way to easy right now for a high stakes user to downvote everything an account posts, destroying their reputation score, making their account pretty much useless. The alternative score that is based on follows, which isn't based on votes on posts, if it were to become the main score to replace the existing reputation score, I could see as being one way to reduce the abusability of downvotes hitting reputation. Personally, all I'm seeing with the new "free" downvote pool is the potential for a rapid "abuse of commons" for massive downvote campaigns. Think of someone setting up a downvote bot "swarm" by registering lots of accounts...

When I used 'reputation', I meant actual social reputation, not broken blockchain reputation. As you've stated, many users have a high blockchain reputation but low social reputation, and the opposite can easily occur when people with high blockchain reputation choose to trash those with high social reputation (but not as deep pockets).

The alternative score that is based on follows, which isn't based on votes on posts, if it were to become the main score to replace the existing reputation score, I could see as being one way to reduce the abusability of downvotes hitting reputation.

This I believe was the original intention of @steem-ua, though their implementation proved that a score based on followers can also be gamed, though not as easily as the blockchain reputation score.

I would expect any type of reputation system to be gameable to some degree. While the @steem-ua approach is not perfect, I do consider it way more useful as a metric than the existing and broken reputation score system.

That I agree with. Steem-ua's system is imperfect, but way better than the existing system. Unfortunately it did not gain enough support even to be added at condenser level.

One could make a condenser fork that does this, but only the users that trust the administrator would ever use that website.

There is not actually any good reason that I'm aware of for 'reputation' to be calculated at protocol level. If a condenser created a better reputation methodology that was found by users to be more meaningful, it would become a feature that attracts people to that condenser.
Better reputation calculations are not something any condenser marketing as their 'competitive advantage', as far as I know.

Right now it is a chain level calculation (to the best of my knowledge) based strictly on votes. IMHO a very abusable system. I only see a free downvote pool as making it more abusable.

100% accurate.

There is the @steem-ua project which demonstrates an alternative reputation score calculation that isn't based on votes.

If you believe that you will attract more stake-weighted downvotes than upvotes, then posting will damage your reputation, and you probably should do it.

I think you mean "shouldn't"

I do believe you're correct.

@steembasicincome, Definitely i have to deep dive into these upcoming changes so that when it is live i can adjust myself with the changes.

The most important point is. Change is vital and if this Change can improve the Steem Ecosystem then the bigger picture is great to see because more than price, value should be added in initial phases.

Let's hope that these changes will bring exciting results. Keep up team and keep expanding.

Posted using Partiko Android

I really couldn't find your argument against the current proposal in this post...

I think I sense some worries about more downvotes in between the lines but then I see multiple arguments for why that would be good in the actual lines themselves:

surviving in the new ecosystem will require a higher level of individual awareness about how much ‘quality’ your own material has.

The only check on buying every possible vote you can for every post is the free downvote pools.

It is the personal responsibility of every Steemian to evaluate the quality of their content with one simple question: Will this post attract more upvotes than downvotes?

Doesn't this all speak FOR the availability of "free" downvotes?!?

In the end, isn't this all about getting rid of all these 70/80-ish reputation accounts that just push out the most repetitive low effort content bid-botted to $100-200 daily without any repercussions?!

There is no proof-of-brain or subjective judgement on quality if people literally just "buy" most of the rewards in a simple ROI game... and then others are expected to spent their voting-mana and the social cost for stepping in?!?

Each of those can be good things or bad things, depending on your values system. That's the central point of the post... good or bad depends on your values system, but the actual outcomes depend on the values systems of the critical stakeholders.

A system that does not appropriately align incentives, but instead depends on the goodness of the parties involved, is doomed to result in outcomes considered horrible by those designing the system.

isn't this all about getting rid of all these 70/80-ish reputation accounts that just push out the most repetitive low effort content bid-botted to $100-200 daily without any repercussions?!

The system designed assumes that key stakeholders will bear the social costs and 'clean up' the trending list... by making it more expensive to trend content, while making it cheaper to downvote content. But there are no incentives built in to ensure that, only an assumption that enough people will bear the social cost to bring about the targeted results.

Even though paying to Trend content will be more expensive than it is now, it will be more profitable relative to non-promoted content than it is now. None of the promotion services will disappear... they will simply reprice and become even more powerful or influential than ever.

Mark it... in the latest analysis I have seen, bid-bots control less than 15% of the reward pool. If the EIP goes through that will exceed 20% (and probably be closer to 30%) within a year of the fork.

Congratulations @steembasicincome! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You published a post every day of the week

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

Well explained. So when will this HF21 will happen?

Posted using Partiko iOS

There is no set date yet. It's not even clear whether enough top witness consensus exists for it to occur.

I guess negotiation is still on-going.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.31
TRX 0.11
JST 0.033
BTC 64733.60
ETH 3170.85
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.16