A declaration of principles at 200 posts.

in #steem5 years ago

Every 100 posts I write about my core principles for making decisions on Steem. This is a method for keeping my action directed well toward my goals, and documenting my understanding of the platform and my plans for participating in it over time. You can read the first edition here.

I've arrived at my 200th post at an interesting time, as I'm in the process of re-evaluating my commitments to Steem projects in reaction to the philosophy, process, and actuality of Hard Fork 20, each of which has its own information to absorb in order to make good decisions about my future on the platform. Hopefully arranging my thoughts in this way will be useful in integrating that new knowledge into a plan.

To make this easier on me these are ordered chronologically, with the ones from last time first. If you don't want to read 2500 words about what I think is important here, I totally understand.

Steem.png

Principle 1: The Core Game should be simple and accessible.

I think what I said about this last time is still good:

I am really, really good at using the overcomplication of the system to my own advantage and the advantage of the users I want to vote on. I am good at that now, I will be good at that when it changes. I promise you I have a huge edge over users who don't figure out all the intricacies of how voting works, who don't do math and build spreadsheets and snoop the blockchain and run separate accounts just to do experiments.

I think that's a bad thing. That edge I have is a giant curb that new users have to jump to be competitive here. I've encountered many users who've been here far longer than I have who still haven't jumped it, who are still frustrated and confused. We need to allow people to come in here cold and be on an even playing field with the experts, at least in the very simple game of creating, finding, and voting on content.

1. All votes should be equally effective, relative to stake.

Basically, if I put a 1c vote on a post, and you put a 1c vote on a post, they should both take the same amount of Steem from the rewards pool and apply it to the post. I shouldn't be able to distribute more value than you do simply because I'm more informed about the underlying complexities of the system.

2. All information for optimal voting should be easily available.

All information that matters to how much a vote is worth should be within the post's display in the condensers. If @steemit wants to change that in the back end they should also change it in the interface. Conversely, if it's so complicated and non-intuitive that putting it in the interface is a bad idea, putting it in the voting structure is also a bad idea.

3. SBD should be fixed.

This is much less of an issue today than it was in the first post - but there's still no mechanism for either holding SBD down or adjusting the ways that the blockchain assumes it's valued at $1. While it has an actual valuation in that neighborhood is the best opportunity to make some changes that remove the immense overcomplication that comes from the system's perception of SBD value diverging from its market value.

4. Basic functionality should be available to all users.

Last week I wouldn't have thought to need this one. But Hard Fork 20 has shown us that it's very possible for efficiency-minded changes to the blockchain to lock out human interaction on the platform, and that obviously needs not to happen. The primary change necessary for this at the current time is a fairly simple one: remove the assumption that resource credits should be distributed linearly by stake. Everyone benefits from new and small users being able to interact on a basic human level, and it makes sense to "tax" some resource credits from large accounts who don't need them in order to support that, by way of a non-linear curve.

Principle 2: New users should have an easy path to effectiveness.

With this on our minds right now it may seem weird, but even with resource credits we're still way ahead on this than we were when I joined, thanks to a more-accessible Steem price. The subsections in this principle have not changed.

1. Encourage smaller buyins.

My days in online poker, free-to-play games, and on Patreon suggest that there are some inflection points in people's willingness to put money into a system. For USD thinkers those seem to be at $5, $20, $50, $200, and $500. The smaller numbers especially can be things people do as a weekly or bi-weekly investment.

Even with the price drop, someone who puts in $20/week isn't going to see an immediate, week-by-week benefit of that buyin. Which means even if they try it once they aren't going to get the reward cycle going and become consistent small-time investors. If Steem is going to be successful long-term we need to be more attractive to those people.

2. Encourage powering up.

Some of us can see the long-term value in powering up our account to increase our effectiveness here, but that's a sophisticated attitude, and one that requires a certain amount of real-life privilege. We need to get more authors powering up their rewards rather than cashing out, in order to take roles that include voting, community support, and participating in decisions about the future of Steem.

3. Create more structures of consistent support for excellent new users.

Once someone is here, and producing good content, and interacting, and looking like they could be a long-term asset, we need to treat them like a long-term asset, and make sure we offer them enough rewards, social and financial, to keep them here. We especially need to be training more people into leadership positions, and making the people who build leadership positions for themselves more effective.

This has been my primary focus so far, and will continue to be one of my most important roles in the community.

Principle 3: Rewards should narrow the class divide, not increase it.

That is to say, we should support participation-weighted rewards over stake-weighted rewards whenever possible. Stake will always be a dominant force here, but currently the class gap is too large for the system to function well. The subsections in this principle have not changed.

1. Support egalitarian rewards over stake-weighted ones.

Rewards that are determined by the power of your stake simply drive the class gap open further. We should direct as many of the rewards as possible to participatory actions available to everyone rather than to stake. In practice, curation rewards are incredibly stake-weighted, while author rewards are more egalitarian, so I support author rewards whenever possible. Hopefully we will see an expansion in the universe of participatory action rewards when SMTs come.

2. Broaden the rewards base rather than narrowing it.

Many of the proposals you may have seen around have the end goal of distributing more rewards to the most popular posts. They tend to be obfuscated in different language. "Superlinear rewards" means distributing more rewards to the most popular posts, and they're at least honest about it. "Returned to the rewards pool" also means distributing more rewards to the most popular posts, and that one isn't as clear.

This is backwards. A healthy system is one in which we have a wide variety of content that gets voting support, and many users who are able to grow through producing that content. Giving more rewards to popular posts distributes power to high-stake, sophisticated, experienced users at the expense of everyone else. It also currently means that the few popular topics we have stay popular, and any topic that doesn't have substantial support has a hard time getting traction.

Principle 4: We should embrace automation.

By being on blockchain at all, we are early adopters of the most-easily-automated system ever invented. We need to treat this as a feature, rather than a bug. Easy automation is one of the most important characteristics of a system based on on open ledger, and fighting it is essentially trying to turn that open-ledger system back into a closed-ledger system.

There may come a time when blockchain-backed social media is the only social media. (That seems unlikely; one feature Steem can't have in its current form is private posting, and people want that.) But until then, what's special about this platform is the very fact of its open ledger and open access, where anyone who wants to can access the back end of the system and write software to interact with that.

This is awesome, and revolutionary. It will allow us to build things that have never been built before, to do things on social media that have never been done before. Like any brand-new engineering field, a lot of the things we do might end up not being particularly good ideas. But this is not a reason to scrap the concept of automation.

Principle 5: A single path to success is a single point of failure.

This started out as why I support vote-buying while also supporting people who don't buy votes. But it's larger than that - it's about making sure that there's a diverse base of interests with stake here, and that the loss of that any single program by any single person can't leave users out in the cold. It's why I support multiple social and curation initiatives on a variety of topics, and it's why I'm focused on making sure that initiatives and community leaders are able to grow their stake.

In order to have a robust system, it needs to have as many paths to success as we can manage. This is number five because of the chronological nature of things, but I think it's the most important. Or maybe the next one is.

Principle 6: Steem's power is in Steem's people.

What's more appealing to me about Steem versus the current crop of popular social media sites is the level of interaction here. We actually talk about things rather than flinging emojis and memes and one-liners at each other, and while this can lead to conflict it can also lead to actually getting somewhere. In years on Facebook and Twitter I can only think of one person I've met on those platforms whose perspective really matters to me, and he was already friends with my partner so we would have met eventually anyway. They're OK for keeping up on people you already know, but poor for meeting anyone meaningful.

In six months on Steem there are already dozens of those people. Some of that it probably the ways in which I prefer to interact, and my personal preference for giant balls of text like this one. Some if it is probably fundamental to being an early-adopter community. But a lot of it is just that there's more room here to actually get to know someone beyond knee-jerk reactions, and it's important to preserve that.

Principle 7: We need a more mature development process.

1. Communication is key.

One of the largest criticisms of the hardfork 20 process has been the lack of testing, but I'm going to take a step farther back from that and suggest that the problem doesn't lie in the fact that no one was testing, but in the fact that no one knew no one was testing. The closed-doors nature of the process really harmed the final results, as many of us with the skills to do some of that work were left under the impression that it was already being done by the people whose blockchain roles included it. We only found out otherwise when everything broke.

The entire development process needs to be carried out in public view, ideally on Steem as well as on Github, so that it's available for everyone to judge. This is the core ethos of open-source development, that the more eyes you have on a project, the more likely you are to find flaws before they're put into production with unhappy consequences.

2. We need a new structure for compensating developers.

Following from #1, once code review, documentation, testing and so on are in the public eye, it becomes practical to reward them in Steem through the power of voting, in a similar way to how Utopian rewards contributions to other open-source projects. This will attract more development talent to put its eyes on Steem, and lead to a more robust development cycle, and thus a more robust product.

I strongly believe that tying this into the witness system is a bad idea, but I'll go into that more in a future post, given how long this one already is. Developer and System Administrator are typically separate roles for a lot of very good reasons.

3. We need analytics.

The argument put forth that the only way to discover the cost of blockchain operations was to drop a payment system suddenly upon the userbase is, to be as politic as possible, complete and utter bullshit. This analysis could have been done on the two years of blockchain data we had available, and then if necessary a purely-data-generating RC system could have been dropped to record the price of actions without actually restricting them. This is what analytics are for: so that decisions about how to deal with limited resources can be made with data, rather than simply assumptions.

4. We need a pre-determined plan for when to roll back.

And in particular, that plan absolutely needs to include a hard line on rolling back anytime user assets are lost. Voting power is an asset, and the loss of VP and response to that has led me to conclude that Steem is not suitable for soliciting serious outside investment at this time. That's led me to shut down the one project I absolutely know is going away, @forinvestors. If we're going to ask people to trust their money to our blockchain, we need to be incredibly uptight about safeguarding it, and we do not currently meet that standard.

As we intend to increase the number and complexity of user assets in the not-too-distant future, this will become both more complicated and more necessary.

This section has been the last section because it is where I expect the greatest amount of my time to be going in the post-HF20 world. I sometimes feel like I'm the one programmer in the world who actually likes doing documentation and unit tests, which makes me the hero we need in these dark hours.

(Or something.)

Sort:  

Thank you for this TC! Though the motivation for it may be for your own clarity and consistency of purpose, this really went in depth on some things I have just started becoming aware of like; how the development process works and how it could be better, the inner workings of the reward system and the potential longterm benefits of automation.

One thing I really agreed with is the idea of a non-linear curve for resource credits. Or even rewards in my opinion. I know there is a fine line between keeping the broad user base happy and scaring away investors and the we all love to talk about this meritocracy stuff, but one thing I didn’t learn in Econ 101 was about the law of increasing returns.
They like to tell you that for various reasons, returns on many investments decrease when scaled but there is also an increasing curve when one hits a certain threshold or diversifies investments.

For instance if one has enough money to invest in a low risk low return investment and can live off a fraction of those returns and reinvest the rest, that person can make a lot more off their investment than someone who must use all of the returns for living expenses and never reinvest.

Thats obviously simplified and I’m no economist (is anyone really?) but it seems like a system that dampens that feedback loop to some extent would have a much more equitable distribution of wealth.

Also any movement toward more transparency seems like the best course of action in this new community driven model that we are experimenting with and is kind of the point really. Decentralization is about self government instead of the fascism the world has lived with as a matter of course for so long. Ths can’t take place without knowledge and the beautiful thing about the open source movement is supposed to be that when given information, thee wisdom of the crowd can be activated and benefited from.

I also learned from this how much about this platform I have to learn ;)

Rock on man, great knowledge bomb and framework for evaluating this platform’s current state.

Posted using Partiko iOS

one thing I didn’t learn in Econ 101 was about the law of increasing returns

Hah! Yeah, invest in small cap Steem users for maximum profit potential. Wait, that actually is my strategy.

Ah the extra long game.

Posted using Partiko iOS

dang, only 12 minutes since publication. I'll come back to vote and comment when I've had time to think.

The new meta is making posts that take more than fifteen minutes to read.

The new meta :D. Though some people still like to vote first and read later. Skim, vote, read, comment? And then of course there's the auto votes.

Thus, limiting those who'll bother to read through them....lol

?
@shanibeer ... HF20 has reduced the time for getting the maximum rewards of the curation from 30 minutes to 15 minutes, that means that if you want to get the best curation possible from the post you have voted, you should upvote it within the first 15 minutes from the publication of the post and not wait to do it afterwards... I tell you becaus it looks to me you are doing exactly the contrary :-)
but anyway, don't get obsessed with that...
For instance, the curation trails and autovoters users have set the upvoting time always within the first 15' for that reason...

Hmm, interesting, because I thought that one of @tcpolymath's posts had explained exactly the opposite - that voting within 15 minutes means your vote is dust.

Everything depends on your impression of the post value...
If you think that the post will be largely upvoted after you, because you think it has a high quality content, then, the best approach is to upvote it earlier...
Here you have an interesting post about:
https://steemit.com/hf20/@accelerator/hf20-change-your-autovotes-now-as-new-posts-will-be-paid-using-hf20-rules

"The best approach" and "the approach that maximizes your curation rewards" are not at all the same thing.

This one has got me thinking....but I don't know what to make of it. They're not the same thing, but are they mutually exclusive?

Well, as I said above, multiple routes to success and all that. But I don't think maximizing curation rewards is a very effective one. Before the hardfork things were set up so that most of the people I respect here were treating curation rewards as if they were lava because voting early allowed them to distribute more rewards per vote, and that was more important.

Now that's no longer true and I'm not sure how things are going to go.

Part of your curation rewards become dust. You can still get more personal curation rewards total by voting earlier in some circumstances, but you take more away from the post than you get back.

I enjoyed reading your post. I have been re-evaluating what I want to do and what I expect to do with steemit. I did not come over to steemit as a way to have a supplemental income, so I have been powering up, and donating, and giving when where needed. I certainly could use it as a supplemental income thing, but I came to steemit because of the social aspects of it, and free-speechedness (made up word) of it, and an almost complete lack of advertising.

There is spam on steemit, there will always be spam on steemit and I do not think the people high up in the steem chain want it to go away. It adds account numbers, and it is numbers that people looking to invest look at. Spam is also a pretty objective line. While people may get upset with "nice post", I myself have no problem with that phrase, as long as it does not include, "i vote an follow you too" or something similar. I follow a lot of people that steemhunt, actifit, and dlike, I do not vote on those types of post, they are what drove me away from TV, Cable,satellite, and other forms of social media, Advertisements. To me all those ae nothing but spam, and to others they are nothing but a few extra votes, and to some they really do believe in a product they are pussing, but at the end of the day they are all advertisements.

I expect I will try to continue as I have, and continue to re-evaluate where I am going and learning what steemit really is. If it becomes one of those we do not want social posting/comments, then I will return to pre-steemit ways, and find another hobby to keep my mind active.

Great and relevant thoughts given the latest experiences we have had. While I think we are headed the right direction, I completely agree the need to create a way to incentivize retention and development over a longer term here on the platform. I see you mention it various times and it immediately had me thinking about the Dash treasury function which allocates a certain percentage of each block reward (or reward pool in our case) to fund projects that would result in promotion or value addition to the protocol. This could be here by the rewards pool or by the dust that remains in many iterations of the process on Steem. This could provide a pool to attend to the needs of projects, developers and communities that focus on adding value to the ecosystem over time. One big question would how it is governed and while the witnesses is the obvious answer, we know that more is needed to hold them accountable for their decisions as seen in the latest Hard Fork. When I think of Corporate Governance, there are typically committees composed of Board members that would focus on these issues. A potential solution would be to increase the amount of top witnesses and create sub committees of witnesses to focus on areas of concern like code, promotion, retention, etc. of which the funds established could be used to support. Just a simple thought that came to mind as I read your post. Thanks for sharing!

Ooh, subcommittees. Now that might be an idea. The members of the committees wouldn't themselves have to be witnesses, but you could have each committee's leadership rest in a few witnesses.

My city's government has advisory commissions for this sort of thing, citizens who apply for topic-specific committees and then submit their recommendations to the elected leadership for things like planning, parks, environment and so on. That might also be a model.

Love this idea

These are all focused on the internal workings, which I understand is the goal of this document.

Do you also think there should be principles regarding Steem and Steemit as they relate to the external world?

Hm. Do you have a more specific question than that? I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

I've thought for a while that we need more writing about Steem toward unsophisticated audiences - that's a large part of what @forinvestors was about - but I'm now kind of skeptical about whether we're really too early for that and need to work some of the process bugs out first.

Yes, @forinvestors is part of it.

From my perspective, the value of something, such as a coin, is determined by its use in a global context. I mean, SteemIt was seeded as a blog site, but it is growing out of this. In growing, it will possibly increase in value. The SMT feature looks promising, but we still see the birth of new narrowly focused coins, such as smoke.io. SMT are not the single future of Steem.

What do you think sould be the principles and values that guide Steem and SteemIt's interactions with the external world and will these principles be profitable for thise of us contributing content at this point?

This is really only tangentially responsive, because each half of that question really requires a week of thought and a post, and at the end of it I'm not sure my vision for what Steem should be would end up being acceptable to others.

(For one thing, I really like the blogging platform. It has key features other than monetization that I really want and aren't currently offered on any top/growing platform, which is not something I can say about any of the other applications except maybe Steem Monsters.)

But what I'm thinking is that we have had "beta" up there in the top left corner for a long time, and it's not very accurate. As we talk about HF20, we're not really talking about product problems, we're talking about process problems, which are much more appropriate for an alpha or even a pre-alpha.

At the same time we have some philosophical conflict about what we're building. Is Steem a social media network itself? Is it the underpinnings of a new internet which contains social media networks and also other things? Can we somehow manage to build both of those things at the same time? Does @vandeberg have a brilliant design for that which he's just not communicating well?

So I think where I am on external relations is that Steem really is still in the lab and we're not remotely ready to write a paper about it yet. We could recruit some additional test subjects, and it would be good if we got our consent standards for that above the median. But we still have serious doubts about getting positive results to our study at all, so leaking it to the media isn't a good idea.

Maybe I've taken this analogy a little too far.

One thing about analytics: They did exactly that, compute costs without applying them, from the beginning of STEEM even. Oddly, it would have been such a small thing to check up on what the balances and costs would be at time of flip. They probably did that (at least for costs), but they maybe were expecting that once costs started to be applied, the traffic would jerk to a halt (but not bc of negative RC balance, which is what actually happened lol). At that point, costs are high, and only a few resources would be used in the first blocks after fork. Then, as the resource pool inflates due to non-use, the cost curve would drive prices down over time. So, it isn't entirely "bullshit" for them to say they don't know what the equilibrium is. However, they probably could have done some simulations. That would be based on the available RC balances for the users and adding their traffic to consume resources when the cost becomes low enough. That would be actually a kind of fun experiment to do separately, come to think of it.

So, it isn't entirely "bullshit" for them to say they don't know what the equilibrium is.

I think it's likely they were telling the truth about not knowing. But it's definitely bullshit to claim that this was the best way of finding out.

Very true. Oh I see, your original words were saying exactly that. What I get for not paying not close enough attention.

I did my own (shorter, but long for me :p) version of this a day or so ago
https://steemit.com/steem/@midlet/what-would-you-do-if-you-were-king-of-steem-bc65a2e47620cest
I think most of my thoughts are in line with yours. I think I still don't fully understand curation, so I'm not really informed enough to speak on that, but I'm with you for pretty much everything.

Big one I think is supporting smaller buy ins and encouraging powering up. Better to have 1 million $100 accounts than 100 million dollar accounts right now. I think we need those sorts of numbers to make this attractive to investors. Right now if I were trying to sell Steem to an investor I don't think I could make a compelling case.

This post has received a 3.13 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @sbi-booster.

You got a 49.79% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @tcpolymath!

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70887.21
ETH 3581.98
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.75