A randomized body of values and a little more luck

Do you know those people who go to the gym but only work the "show muscles", the chest, arms and back - but forget the legs? You know the type or at least, can imagine the kind that I am talking about. What happens though is that the body gets out of balance and this is especially true for those who only do gym work without having it for any practical purpose, like a sport. Someone who plays a sport will train for and the sport will support the body that gets the most out of performance. You don't see many skinny offensive football linemen and you don't see many 350 pound Olympic divers.

But for "everyday usage", the body performs the best when there is a balance between muscle groups where there is good distribution and strength, without any part overpowering the other. There is also the other factors involved for a human body to perform well with nervous system, psyche, attitude, emotions etc all playing a part.

The best performing people on earth are the ones who can find a balance that suits them and while there are very good guidelines to get started, the fine-tuning of the process falls onto the shoulders of the person themselves. However, if that person focuses too heavily on any one point for whatever reason, the other groups will suffer and the entire body will perform poorly. For example, a person who chooses to keep their fat percentage down could be healthy, but someone who obsesses over it to the point that is all they do is likely not - anorexia is not likely the condition of optimal performance.

So, where is this going?

Well, I have noticed some people who are looking at the Economic Improvement Proposal (EIP) as individual factors without looking at it in it's entirety. For example, the three main points are;

1. 50/50 reward distribution,
2. convergent linear curve
3. downvote pool (free flags)

As individual components, it is very easy to have valid arguments against each of these positions. It is easy to argue that 50/50 where 50% goes to curators takes away from contributors, convergent linear harms the smallest accounts, or free downvotes give rise to increased toxicity.

However, this is a "dishonest" appraisal if they are going to be introduced simultaneously as each has an influence on the system in some way and each component is going to influence the other components in the group, and affect behavior of the community as a whole and various actors within it.

Every change creates a compounding effect of changes and the complexity for prediction is very difficult. What this means is that most people will have a look at it with an "all things remaining equal" mindset when by definition, change means that not all things are going to remain equal. But because human aren't great at predicting future complexity, we simplify it down into ways we can understand it and that is usually from the perspective we know and, we take the position that will benefit us the most as like it or not, people are people and they will maximize in one way or another.

Maximization on Steem doesn't have to be the maximization of Steem coins themselves, it can also be the maximization of attention or for many, sympathy. Just because you might not self-vote or sell-votes or whatever you disagree with, it doesn't mean that you aren't maximizing your position in some way, especially if you feel the need to announce that you aren't doing these things. Good behavior doesn't require a reward to be good, but recognition in itself is a type of reward and seeking it is looking to maximize the reward value of it.

This isn't an attack or a judgement on various behaviors I see and probably take part in, it is just a reminder that people are people and will act to maximize their position in what they consider has value. Many of those who do announce their position and regardless of their action, still want Steem as a reward for their behavior too, which is why the whales get so much flack for not rewarding good behavior by those who consider themselves good actors.

Personally, I am in favor of the EIP because it brings uncertainty back into the Steem ecosystem and also increases the probability of "getting lucky", something everyone enjoys. Even when the very first bidbot was launched back in 2017 (@randowhale), @berniesanders understood the attraction and importance of luck and risk, and buyers had the potential to lose a bit but, there was also the potential to get a very overpowered vote on a randomized algorithm - kind of like winning the lottery. While in those days the votes were lower, people actually had fun with bidbots.

This type of randomization, chance and risk needs to be reintroduced into Steem because, it has got altogether too safe for certain behaviors and, those behaviors are not necessarily the ones that scream, healthy community. At the moment, there is very little chance of getting downvoted for an over-priced post boosted into trending because there is both no economic incentive to do so and it is actually an opportunity cost, and there is incentive to delegate to the bots that are doing the voting.

Once there are free downvotes, that changes as there is risk for those who buy, this in turn creates risk of maximization of ROI on those who sell and with 50/50 curation there is a closing of the gap between selling and curating directly. So, if there are large buyers knocked down to the point they won't buy anymore, that is potential Steem in the pool for distribution to others.

If, there are some percentage of people still willing to sell for a lower ROI, this means that there is more in the pool too and, for those who remove delegations to start voting directly again, there is more eyes on contributors. With a convergent linear curve, while there will be a lot of small accounts trimmed, there is added eyes on who are the real contributors and creators, more SP backing them and, more SP in the pool because BS buys are being downvoted, changing buy behavior.

Is this the way it will play out? I don't know precisely but I do know that looking at each factor independently and then putting those parts together is not the way it is going to play out as they aren't factoring in all factors, not even the known ones like these three points. How I see it is that is hard to precisely predict what is going to happen which means it is hard to maximize ROI and community driven downvoting incentive will mean that there is always variation in how much is getting allocated from and, how much is getting returned to the pool.

With so many people taking different approaches ad with different focuses on their Steem experience, in a dynamic environment that has reintroduced chance, luck and independent action, it is going to make for a more balanced system as it will be less clear what approach is going to reap the best returns. Yes, some people are likely to be better at it than others but, that is the way it always will be. The ones who will be the best are likely to also be the ones who chose to train their understanding o the ecosystem at various points and this will likely amount to a more balanced approach between creation, investing and taking on a community position.

Our ability to evolve as a species is aided heavily by randomization and while so many people are certain of the outcome, it will be those who are sensitive to the changes and adapt with them that will come out the best off. Most likely, it will mean cross-training and building a body of value that has diversity in the approach. Be an investor, a contributor, a community builder, a consumer and what I see as the most important part of the randomization effect of the EIP, someone who takes the responsibility to keep their interest areas free of abuse. Whatever that means to you.

I have thought a fair bit about what the EIP might do for the environment and I think that the pros outweigh the cons. I also don't know what the best approach is going to be at any of the various levels, I don't even know really what changes I would make for myself.

I find that, very interesting.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]