RE: Steemit Doubling Down On Paying Rent To The Trending Tab
On the flip side, what are users who do understand the new economic incentives going to do? Instead of creating the one post paying out $100 they'll create 100 posts that pay out $1.10. Hey, look at that, I just got a free $10 and now the blockchain is cluttered full of 100 more worthless spam comments.
No, it's the other way around. To make it to the linear part of the curve, you need a lot of voting power upvoting a post. If the voting power directed at your posts falls on a number of low-reward posts below the linear part of the curve in rewards, you lose money compared to all that voting power concentrating one post of yours.
The little guy will get shafted as in having a somewhat less valuable vote than now. But that can be remedied using a bot the little guys can delegate their voting power to. (Owing to RC limitations, this is only helpful to near-Minnows). That bot creates a placeholder post every 2.4 hours and upvotes it with full power to get to the linear part of the curve. It scans the blockchain constantly and pays rewards to the authors (and curators) of those posts that its delegators have upvoted. The bot powers down constantly to liquify all of the rewards to be able to pay them even with a delay of one week. If the whales don't like the bot and start downvoting the placeholder posts or its delegators' posts, that will be an open declaration of war on the little guy and the death of Steem.
This is not my understanding of the convergent curve.
https://steemit.com/steem/@vandeberg/reward-curve-deep-dive
As explained in this post
was used as an example curve.
1 to 0.83 (x83%)
10 to 33 (x330%)
100 to 476 (x476%)
1000 to 4975 (x497%)
Ah yes, so you're right. For some reason I was thinking the parabolic rewards would give an advantage to smaller payouts. In affect, everyone would be incentivized to buy votes to avoid the penalty, which is exactly what supporters of this new system claim to avoid (thus the confusion).
This mishap really undermines the entire foundation of my post but at the same time is a great example of how overcomplicating the system is going to confuse a lot of people. Ironically enough, the title is still accurate even though the body assumes incorrect information. Instead of punishing vote bots it greatly rewards them. This makes perfect sense as the stake holders running the vote bots are in charge of approving the changes to the system.
Thanks for clearing this up. Much appreciated.