scrobble.life
#hf21

HF21 Addition: Vote Window Change

@steemitblog@steemitblog (75)2610d

voting window.jpg

Hello Steemians, in the interest of keeping you all fully informed about the upcoming Hardfork we would like to inform you of a change that was proposed by the Witnesses with near-unanimous support. The change would reduce the “vote window” of a post from 15 minutes to 1 minute. Previously this window had been 30 minutes, but was reduced to 15 minutes in Hardfork 20.

Vote Window?

What the “vote window” means is that if a Steem user upvotes a post (“comments” are a type of post) immediately after it is published, they will receive a reduced curation reward. Only once 15 minutes have elapsed, and a vote is rendered, will that Steem user receive the full curation reward.

Because the Witnesses presented unanimous support, we coded up the changes and merged them into the release candidate. But we can easily undo these changes if necessary. We do not have any reason to believe that this change would adversely impact Steem, but we have not had sufficient time to perform the level of analysis we would ideally prefer.

If you’d like to learn more, @thecryptodrive has written a post that explains why he supports this change.

Your Witnesses

If you would like to learn more about why the Witnesses have made this decision, or if you do not agree with their decision, please let them know in the comments sections below. Ultimately it is your delegated stake that gives the Witnesses the authority to make these decisions, and if you do not feel those decisions are the right ones, then you should remove your Witness vote and allocate it to a Witness whose decisions are more aligned with your interests.

The Steemit Team

Comments · 40

  • @trincowski(72)· 2609d

    So now reading the posts will be completely irrelevant? Why should I bother creating quality content if no one will read it? Should I go back to post a single image with a single line of text, as I did when I had no followers?

  • @arcange(79)· 2609d

    Congratulations @steemitblog! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

    • Comments - Ranked 1 with 119 comments
  • @zaxan(67)· 2609d

    Steemit inc 2020: Hello Now the curve is 85/25. Steemit inc 2021: Hello now we only give 100% steem power reward and you need to unstake it to use.

    Save this message.

  • @fraenk(63)· 2609d

    so to maximize curation rewards... we should upvote BEFORE we read the content then?!

    That's a weird change and to me it honestly just looks like large stakeholders with their auto-voting want to make sure they can stay ahead of the organic curation?!?

  • @shadowspub(77)· 2609d

    the day it can be figured out how to sense if a post has been 'read' rather than just 'seen' and that vote having more strength will be the day that bots racing to vote will go away.

    Another platform I'm on does it. No idea how but my stats show views and reads.

  • @cryptogee(76)· 2609d

    The reason it changed to one minute was to stop the bots winning every single vote race.

    What's changed? Oh yes that's it, most of the top witnesses own bots!

    Cg

  • @cosmiccitadel(51)· 2609d

    I think it's a good idea. People shouldn't have to play a little game just to figure out when they should upvote a post they like.

  • @revo(62)· 2609d

    Why is there a vote window at all? What's the reasoning for one?

  • @geekpowered(70)· 2609d

    Rather curious that you make the point about witnesses with this decision versus the various others that have been quite controversial.

  • @por500bolos(68)· 2609d

    Well, around these days in which there is so much talk about attract new investors, recruit new developers, onboard new people, open new accounts and such in our ecosystem. I just had a ¿crazy? idea.

    What about if the Stinc Devs simply code up and merge in the changes into the release candidate of the upcoming Hardfork 21 a simpler 'Curation' algorithm?

    Hmm, well, I dunno... but, for example:

    If they just forget everything about “vote windows” and shit. And just focus on add a piece of code where only resteeming a post allows Curation Rewards?

    I mean, forget everyone who want to call themselves "Curators" of earning not even half shit from curation rewards by 'upvoting' a post in the first minute no matter how big their VP or SP is.

    Anyone who'd want to extract from the public rewards pool a single dime and is expecting to get profits for their devoted Curation efforts. From now on, they will have to resteem a post!! Because only exerting your true role as a curator by executing a resteem would be the only way to have a ROI.

    Yeah! correct, I admit it! There is no do$h available for authors either from a resteem. But who cares? Re-steeming means Curation. You may always upvote the post after you have READ it completely from top to bottom to throw your two cents in the authors hat. ¿right?

    Uhm, I just wonder how many new steem accounts would be instantly created and how many new 'peeps avatars' we would get to interact with the steem blockchain through their active Curator's re-steems if my 'crazy' proposal is heard & evaluated?

    I bet that at least a few thousands new Alt accounts that will resteem "curate content" would be created. But yeah, no doubt they would be the same usual suspects with enough steem dough & high SP to claim them and pay for them.

    Cheers!! :)

  • @lukestokes(77)· 2609d

    I'm in support of this because it's just not natural to read a new post and then have to think about when you will vote on it in order to get some curation rewards. When there were not that many new posts, it was easy to find "new" posts that were still older than the vote window and show them some love. I think this change will make that easier and more fun to do again, incentivizing rewarding new content from new users.

    With curation rewards going up, this becomes more of an issue. I helped create and update scripts like this to get around this issue in the past, but it really just adds more complexity, so I'm happy we're doing away with it and going down to only 1 minute.

    Those in the comments here concerned about bots, know that we all are. The reality of this ecosystem is we have to protect what we value. That may include actually finding and downvoting attempts at gaming the system for disproportional gains and wealth extraction while upvoting posts which create value (and by that, I mean real value for the STEEM token, not just "good" content).

  • @abitcoinskeptic(75)· 2609d

    As a result of regressive curve 2e12, most of those immediately voting will receive -33%. Generally, I've noticed curation rewards value being 50% to 200% . However now that it's doubled, I guess this means we will see well timed votes get massive curation rewards. Also the window for voting at the wrong time is so small it is reduced to seconds. Combined with SPS, this is now a ststem so blatently in favor of popular witnesses, whales and developers. No kidding they just agreed to all of it and more.

    The maths behind getting everything right are now so complex, I imagine anyone behaving human is at such a huge disadvantage. We are going for a fairly simple efficiency equation to something that looks like an unfair question in a computer science class.

    No one likes to miss out due to complexity. Under the previous way some who were more clever were able to figure it out and explain well to others how to emulate. Under the new system, the answer is going to be (pay and?) use this bot.

    Wven if 100% of whales, allstar devs and top witnesses have best interests in mind and aren't selfish, I can see their enthusiasm and experience for this tech cloud their judgement and not realize the complexity of the changes now taking place.

    Experts and enthusiasts are doing the testing (pr pretending they understand) and say it's all good. What about the non-experts?

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @drutter(73)· 2610d

    This is GREAT news.... ...for witnesses, whales, insiders, staff, and bots. It takes from the 'have-nots' to enrich the 'haves'. It's another nail in the coffin of this community.

  • @jacekw(70)· 2610d

    Only once 15 minutes have elapsed, and a vote is rendered, will that Steem user receive the full curation reward.

    Wait... Time of vote is not the only factor. So vote placed at 5 min or 10 min could be more profitable than after 15 min.

  • @galleryworld(56)· 2610d

    I think its nice idea..

  • @healthexpert(70)· 2610d

    @steemitblog 15 minute voting system is waste of money now if a person vote instantly curation reward burn and goes to penalty so its better to remove the minute terms for curation

  • @jpphotography(71)· 2610d

    I agree that the current 15 minutes is too long, but currently the 15-minute-window means that as a result of the competition of autovoters trying to get in before each other, a lot of curation rewards are going back into the rewards pool. If this change is implemented together with the 50/50 split (which I am in favour of), this will mean not only doubling curation rewards, but increasing them even more, leaving less for authors. A 5-minute window would be a better solution in my opinion.

  • @justyy(74)· 2610d

    Setting to 1 minute improves the user experiences that is for sure. But this may bring more bots in.

  • @techslut(70)· 2610d

    It's great to see more posts from you guys and the fact that you're actually listening to the community and implementing logical requests.

  • @gaeljosser(73)· 2610d

    The big game here is making curation more profitable than content creation. In the long term, it is expected that curation patterns change in benefit for the authors, but that might not happen.

    A vote received before 30/15 mins meant more author reward, and even that is taken out of the equation? what's left for authors if people keep curating the same way they've been doing it so far? How will new users be persuaded to come use Steemit if chances for a reward are being diminished with each hardfork?

    I'm not very optimistic about these changes as I see those with the more stake receiving more out of their cryptocurrencies and giving less for this site to function as it was previously designed. I'm afraid curation patterns will stay the same and authors will be less motivated to create content. The long run you hope for might not happen...

  • @chesatochi(73)· 2610d

    At this point, why not. it gives more chance to find a good gem under 1 minute.

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @flemingfarm(81)· 2610d

    The vote window has been a major problem for a long time. I have never seen any reason to have it so long. If I see a post and vote it it should only matter what my stake is, not the timeframe in which I vote the post. This hopefully will remove the stupid game of curating and make it more organic. Making a game automatically makes people try to cheat it or maximize it. If everyone is equal across the board then there is more likely to be honest curation.

    At least I hope.

  • @aggroed(80)· 2610d

    Most new people using this system were getting pretty screwed. They see a post, upvote it, and don't even know they are losing a bunch of their curation rewards. The rule was really made for back when we had exponetial rewards and the same 10 authors were the only ones making anything. So, getting on the post first really mattered. Here it's not as important since the change to linear rewards. To me new users are losing curation rewards as the con, and there's really no more pro since the change to linear. It's an easy decision to include for me.

  • @whatsup(76)· 2610d

    I like this change I think it goes more hand in hand with "natural use"... Read it, if you like it upvote it, none of the BS of trying to remember to go back 15 minutes later.

    Anytime will be gamed by bots, so this just allows humans to get in there too.

  • @bashadow(70)· 2610d

    I don't know how many people remember @grumpycat, and his trying to show people what a bad actor could do with self votes. If a person wants to give themselves a really big payday under the 1 minute rule it will be easy to do. Very easy in fact. Make a post, self vote it, make 9 place holder comments like gumpycat did, then on day 7 at the last possible minute up vote your own comments. 10 100% votes, you may lose a tad bit of curation on the original post if others voted your post, but the 9 comments at the last minute no problem all yours. So if you have a $10.00 100% vote value you could potentially have a $100 dollar payday. This would work for little people also, as log as their vote was above the dust vote threshold, they could grow their accounts with out any assistance from anyone at all.

    Do away with the Self Vote rule and above problem will never happen.

  • @bluerobo(70)· 2610d

    Shortened voting window and modified rewards curve sounds like beneficial changes to me. Too bad we will be having a hard time attributing effects because of the multitude of changes at once. I hope we will have regular forks with singular changes in the future.

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @vikisecrets(80)· 2610d

    Looking forward to the vote window change, never really understood the vote window and reducing curation rewards for "early" voters.

  • @freebornangel(72)· 2610d

    Yea! The bots win!

    Now they get the best curation rewards and auto voting won't help unless @mahdiyari codes sub one minute votes.

    How does the reverse auction work? Seconds change the penalty?

    Naturally it is a done deal, too. Smdh.

    I dont know why, atp, I'm still surprised. Things have only gotten worse since i got here. (Except rc's) When does that change?

  • @sitasharma(49)· 2610d

    Seriously 1 minutes !😣

  • @ahmanik(62)· 2610d

    Hi sir i am always wait for your vlog..when i read your blog i gatherd more and more knowledge from read over your vlog...

    This update is so essential for our steemit journey. Thanks for share your valuable post..

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @stackin(78)· 2610d

    I see many people preparing to “front” vote on more whales and orcas content without ever reading it. 🤷🏼‍♂️😂

    Posted using Partiko iOS

  • @lunaticpandora(70)· 2610d

    This will be beneficial for comment upvoting and I don't really see a difference between 15 minutes to 1 minute when people are going to automate it anyways!

  • @deniskj(67)· 2610d

    This is a good change in all honesty. That means those who skim new posts and move on to other content will probably leave a vote. However, with the way things are going it seems the Hard fork is prioritising curators more than the authors. The 50/50 split is my biggest concern. If that goes through I can guarantee low earners who make up the largest part of this community will vanish.

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @uyobong(78)· 2610d

    The development sound good in a way to reward authors within first 15 minutes of posting. However, this could be abused by self votes. As such, I think there should be an exception for self voting.

    My thoughts though.

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @blocktrades(80)· 2610d

    I've long been a proponent of this change and I'm very glad to see it finally implemented. I originally proposed setting it at 5 minutes about a year or two ago, but at the time it was instead reduced from 30 to 15 minutes as a compromise of some kind. But even 15 minutes was too much, IMO, because I think many voters weren't aware of it or didn't have the patience to wait that long before voting on a "hot" post, so they wound up losing curation rewards for no good reason.

  • @paradigm42(60)· 2610d

    In my humble redfish opinion a 5 minute window might work more ideally than 1 minute, so as to encourage people to actually read the posts they are upvoting/curating, as opposed to just skimming the contents to get the jump on everyone else in the curation game..

  • @ew-and-patterns(71)· 2610d

    I have a feeling this is going to be either the best hardfork ever or the worst hardfork ever :D Hoping for the best.

  • @mcfarhat(71)· 2610d

    Where are such discussions being held? We've been seeking to join the Steemit slack for so long, unfortunately to no listening ears, if that's where those chats take place...

    As a witness currently ranked 34, @actifit is very much interested in participating and voicing out our opinion wherever we find necessary or helpful.

    We are supportive of above decision from our perspective.

  • @fingolfin(63)· 2610d
  • @abh12345(80)· 2610d

    Those using their own scripts for voting are going to do very well placing their votes in this window. Those using steemauto/steemvoter will have varying results, although not anywhere close to those running their own setup.

    IF

    curators come out of the woodwork to find undervalued content, 1 minute will work well for those quick to see the potential of a post.

    I made the 'if' quite big, not sure if it should be bigger.