Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 49. (Read 107064 times)

Well it sucks but some people still mae money from the coin i guess...

Lol, you identified some of my techniques which I was sort of doing out of habit, not really consciously.

Well it sucks but some people still mae money from the coin i guess...

support at steemit.com maybe? I'm not really sure.


See the next two posts in this thread after yours. This blockchain is an order of magnitude more complicated than most (all?) others and the mechanisms are poorly explained in general.

Welcome to Steemit.

How many sincere followers do you think you have in social networks?

Have you been to Mardi Gras? I was born in New Orleans. You look like you have some mix of native American ancestry am I correct?

Can you guess which one is me? This was taken 1982, but in Culver City, CA.

Hola! Darn I miss authentic street cart Mexican food. Your food is more upscale, but also looks delicious.

I don't know if you can expect to earn a lot of money on Steemit, because this would require developing a following that likes your food blogs and there would need to be some whales who upvote your blogs.

Try to stay hooked into this concept because we developers are still working on perfecting the concept and exploring ways to make the rewards more meritorious and better defined. You might want to follow me to keep up-to-date on such matters.

Flagged for being clickbait (title and come on that doesn't match the subject matter). Also because whining without understanding that people do what they are economically motivated to do. If you have a solution for  a better rewards algorithm, then we are discussing that now @dantheman's post. Perhaps my downvote is too harsh, but I really don't want to read more admonitions about behavior. Let people do what they want. Fix the reward algorithms if you want to influence behavior. This is my rant about the recent shift to blaming people for acting rationally. And the hypocrisy that you are doing what you admonish, writing about Steemit!

Hope you are not budgeting with the assumption that Steemit can continue to fund you? There is no guarantee Steem will be around for 6 months.

@r0ach they aren't exploiting us. We are shopping.

Then Steem has a bug. It lost my power down requests from last week. I did not receive any STEEM on this recent power down.

Where would I report such a problem?

Well someone over there mislead me by stating that when SBD are created, the VESTS are created to back it. Obviously that is incorrect, because you are confirming that only liquid STEEM are created to convert (retire) SBD.

Any thoughts on why people are so fucking confused in their explanations or WTF they are referring to?

Stan's gonna take away all your brownie

I find this currency hard to understand.

First there are Steem, then you have Steem Power, then you have Steem dollars, all separate entities with no direct link between each other.

Powered down SP goes to STEEM.

I'm not sure I'm following this but let me try to explain it clearly.

The vesting fund contains STEEM POWER. That STEEM POWER can only be converted to STEEM (1:1) according to the power down rules (1% per week, etc.). STEEM can be converted to STEEM POWER (1:1) by powering up.

The vesting fund can be denominated as VESTS, which represent shares of the vesting fund. VESTS are created and destroyed by:

1. Power ups (creates new VESTS)
2. Power downs (destroys VESTS)
3. Rewards paid in SP (creates new VESTS, and SP is added to the vesting fund so as to not dilute the vesting fund)

The exchange rate is the number of SP in the vesting fund divided by the number of VESTS. The exchange rate is modified whenever new SP are added to the vesting fund as anti-diluation payments. This increases the exchange rate per VESTS but does not change the number of VESTS.


Correct.

Organic growth is essential. This means that the users come to the site for what drives a long-term growth of the value of the activity on the site.

Users are enticed to come to the site to figure out how to game it for money:

• Authors figuring out how to game the "circlejerk" groupthink that is created by the concentration of voting power (and this voting power is necessarily concentrated per the logic on my blog post).
• Curators figuring out to frontrun (game) the same groupthink.
• Looming prospect of pacts forming as it becomes evident that it is a "last man out the door" dilemma.

Afaics there is virtually no energy spent on actually trying to write for divergent communities (and if you do you are penalized), because there is no economic reward for doing so. I will probably only earn ~$250 for this blog post even though I've invested perhaps the most effort in it of all my blogs (note I wrote this blog not for earning but because I want to discuss this important issue), and some clickbait opportunist who messed up the math from my prior blog post earned $4000 (double what I earned in my correct blog post). So many examples where gaming the groupthink is transferring outsized rewards to content that doesn't really focus on any community strongly but is able to fool whales into thinking it has wide appeal. Wide appeal is not organic engagement!

The problem is the design did not incentivize organic growth of the activity of forming communities of like-minded interests. That was never contemplated in the design of the system as far as I can see from reading the white paper.


When and if it becomes apparent that the option of whales working together to build something is not possible because of flaws in the design, then the first whale to defect and start paying kickbacks to slave authors in order to accelerate his cashout rate, will set off a monkey-see-monkey-must-copy effect, because nobody wants to be left holding the bag.

I don't know when or if that will happen, but it seems game theoretically inevitable unless some other factor overwhelms (or if I have a mistake in my understanding of the game theory).


I am also very excited and enthused to see so many people joining and especially the high proportion of females. But I also am fearful that this could be a big bust and perhaps even cause those females to (become wary and) run away from blockchain stuff in the future. We not only have a big opportunity but also a huge responsibility to not mess it up.

Females either come to build social experiences within their interests and memes (or they come to game the community of horny, adulating,  travelust nerds). If we inundate them with cryptospeak and cryptorollercoaster speculation, then they may come to form an opinion that crypto stuff is not their home. Btw, I highly commend @dan (@dantheman) on his solution of the crypto security issue. That is potentially a major innovation and could go a long way to helping the masses trust crypto blockchains.

You are arguing the Nash equilibrium which is that defection is not an ideal strategy. But I think that normally ignores opportunity cost. Nash equilibrium can sustain for a while when the upside appears to be very significant, but if upside slows down then opportunists get restless to seek out their opportunity cost.


I am not convinced although I am excited to try. The reason I am not convinced is because we don't know if we've proven a scalable incentive for blockchains. We are seeing some hype effect right now and everyone is patting each other on the back, but we haven't proven out the hard problem of scaling incentives and avoiding game theory debacles.


I keep trying to point out the flaw in this pervasive argument to @smooth and others, but seems they strongly disagree with me (and probably think I am a jealous party pooper). You are are thinking that 1 + 1 = 2 and I am trying to point out that 1 + 1 can equal -1. This is because the economic incentives are driving the opposite of organic growth, so you end up having a negative scaling effect. Thus if my assumption is correct, then there is no muddle through and only disadvantages compared to Facebook. Balancing factors are the extreme hope and idealism that is in the crypto community which is what I think is currently sustaining this, but I am not sure.

There was just a weekly power down that occurred which makes ~1% of the SP liquid. So perhaps this is generating selling demand.

Does anyone know where the powered down SP goes? Into STEEM or STEEM DOLLARS?

Unfortunately, I think this suggestion will enable the vulnerability that allows pacts to form that can game the voting system.

Afaics, the design is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Damned if you do, and Dan'med if you don't. (Lol just humor, no offense)


And the finite cognitive bandwidth limit, as the diversity of communities outstrips a whales' engagement and understanding.


I think that is a mistake, not only for the reason I stated above, but also because it places a slow-moving, rigid top-down mgmt structure on the spontaneous formation of new communities within the ecosystem. I've been having many discussions with @smooth and unfortunately I have observed that @smooth was the moderator (censor!) for the Monero Speculation thread on BCT and he seems to relish a role as a top-down censor. I hate censorship (meaning any top-down influence on content). I believe in self-forming coteries and the highest degrees-of-freedom.


But can't stake be Sybil attacked by free signup "air drop" accounts?


Yes a Web of Trust (WoT) is a self-forming coterie and is normally a solution, but the problem is you are taking the funding from the globalized debasement, thus the WoT can be gamed because that globalized resource will always be a winner-take-all power vacuum vulnerability. It appears to be fundamental, but I am open to hearing about novel solutions.


Problem again is the air drops can be Sybil attacked. And even real people can enjoin pacts to achieve the winner-take-all because those who don't will be at a disadvantage. In a very abstract way it is analogous to selfish-mining.


Perhaps use the Follows list. I am not disputing the power of a WoT, but that localization of discernment power is game theoretically subverted (destroyed) once you use it to award a redistibution from the collective. Essentially you are conflating popularity and local preferences.

@dantheman (Daniel Larimer) upvoted my blog post, but as expected no other whale did: