I've had a bit more time to ponder the proposed economic incentives for HF21 and I've come to a few revelations on the matter. A while back I talked about curation and why it doesn't belong in the consensus layer. The reason for this is that curation is the act finding valuable diamond-in-the-rough content and making it visible for the rest of the platform.

Curation revolves around visibility. Therefore, it is implied that posts with higher payout are automatically more visible to the platform. However, this is not a feature of Steem, but rather one of Steemit.com. Having a higher payout has absolutely no affect on the blockchain whatsoever. All transactions on the blockchain occur in sequential order in real time no matter what.

This is an example of how Steemit Incorporated has manipulated the core consensus layer of the blockchain to suit the needs of Steemit.com, and it's happening again.

Parabolic to Linear convergent curve

What's going to happen if we change the reward curve to one that starts out parabolic and converges into a linear one? Well, the whales have already been accused of forcing users to "pay rent" to the trending tab via bid bots. This problem will be a lot worse with a convergent curve.

With a convergent curve, everyone on the trending tab is going to be required to pay even more rent to garner that mythical visibility on the platform. Why? Because everyone on the trending tab will have payouts high enough to invoke linear rewards, while content that isn't being bid botted up will be getting a higher reward ratio in relation to how much upvote power was allocated.

Sounds good right? Let's punish people who are using bid bots to shill their content to the top of the trending tab. This will punish vote buyers and perhaps get better content on the trending tab, right?

Wrong :(

Vote selling services can modify their rules to whatever they want. They are going to be able to pivot easily in the face of 50% curation and a convergent curve. Also, a lot of the people on the trending tab aren't really paying attention to the economic incentives.

If there's one thing I've learned about people and the economy, it's that they are bad at math and bad with money. People don't care what the rules are. They do what they are going to do. Emotions often times defy all logic.

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.

Flagging pool

This is where the downvote pool is supposed to kick in. Surely, if we give everyone free downvotes then they will use them to nullify these abusers spamming the network to capitalize on parabolic rewards!

NO!

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! This is how we got into this problem into the first place. We are seriously going to double down on the idea that everyone is going to be altruistic and give their downvotes away for free to make the platform a better place? God damn it, give me a fucking break.

Downvotes will be bought and sold on the free market just like upvotes are today. Why give your downvote away for free when someone wants to buy it on the cheap to engage in a petty flag war that hurts the platform?

50% curation

I've already stated my stance on curation, so doubling down on it is obviously a silly notion. You can't decentralize the platform by giving bigger kickbacks to the stake holders. On the flip side, you also can't stop the stakeholders from giving away money to the users they think are bringing value to the platform. The 50% curation hike will have very little affect on the economy as a whole, while the separate downvote pool will wreck havoc on the platform.

Again, there is absolutely no reason to force curation on anyone. Curation is a feature of Steemit.com and it's sister frontends. Clearly, it should be an optional feature to be determined by content creators.

Conclusion

All the proposed changes for the economy have one goal: to take money from the people who aren't paying attention and give it to those that are. This is not a call for Doomsday. I simply want a record how much I vehemently oppose these changes. I'll get to point back to these posts and be like... "Uh duh, I told you so, it was obvious." Perhaps one day I'll be taken seriously by the people actually making these decisions.

At first, I was thinking that everyone on board with these changes was a slimy lying snake, but now I realize that a lot of supporters of this new system truly believe that it's all going to work as planned. The worst-case scenario of everyone acting in their own self-interest is simply being ignored.

These changes are all part of Steemit Inc's plan to monetize the platform. MIRA and ads were just the beginning. Now, they are incentivizing big stake holders to power up and stay powered up to exploit all these mechanics at the expense of the little guy.

Who knows, maybe this is the best short-term move possible considering the circumstances. Why cater to the community and the content creators when you can lure more investors into the space? Personally, I think it's against the spirit of decentralization, community, and freedom, but that's just me.

Return from Steemit Doubling Down On Paying Rent To The Trending Tab to edicted's Web3 Blog