RE: People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards by madillorama

View this thread on: hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com

Viewing a response to: @dantheman/people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards

steem · @madillorama · Aug 11 '16

@dantheman, from what I gather from your post, the proposition is to essentially ASK the largest current stakeholders to CHOOSE 30 "friends". Each of those 30 people then receive a share of that stakeholder's influence, and chose 30 "friends" of their own, trickling the influence down exponentially. If I am understanding this correctly, doesn't this leave the possibility of "mutual" friendships allowing for networks of the most powerful people to share each others influence, leaving the rest of us out of the loop? A mandatory percentage of friends within a certain "Vests bracket" could help diversify the influence. I.E. you must have 3 friends with a SP value of less than 500, 3 less than 10000 etc...Otherwise I see the influence staying roughly where it is now, with whales sharing influence with other valuable accounts.

Nice to see the team is thinking about solutions and striving for a representative and happy culture here on Steemit.

👍 nobodyishome, madillorama, timcliff, rhi-marie

`author`	madillorama
`permlink`	re-dantheman-people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards-20160811t031826199z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"],"users":["dantheman"]}
`created`	2016-08-11 03:18:21
`last_update`	2016-08-11 03:18:21
`depth`	1
`children`	4
`last_payout`	2016-09-10 19:32:42
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	951
`author_reputation`	2,545,105,353,619
`root_title`	"People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	738,845
`net_rshares`	13,892,351,956
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (4)

voter	rshares	pct
nobodyishome	6,204,999,349	100%
madillorama	4,221,505,758	100%
rhi-marie	1,278,948,505	100%
timcliff	2,186,898,344	100%

@anonymint · Aug 11 '16

I don't think your suggestions will do anything to improve the collusion vulnerability. People can split their equity into multiple accounts.

properties (22)

`author`	anonymint
`permlink`	re-madillorama-re-dantheman-people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards-20160811t070530601z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-08-11 07:05:24
`last_update`	2016-08-11 07:05:24
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2016-09-10 19:32:42
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	141
`author_reputation`	28,085,935,540,836
`root_title`	"People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	741,242
`net_rshares`	0

@madillorama · Aug 11 '16

Hmm. What if you randomly generated half the accounts that shared the influence of the the whale account? And what if the randomly selected accounts were still set to be in a mandatory vest bracket? The mandatory accounts could be reassigned every year. Do you think that could work?

properties (22)

`author`	madillorama
`permlink`	re-anonymint-re-madillorama-re-dantheman-people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards-20160811t152304486z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-08-11 15:23:03
`last_update`	2016-08-11 15:23:03
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2016-09-10 19:32:42
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	283
`author_reputation`	2,545,105,353,619
`root_title`	"People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	746,966
`net_rshares`	0

@timcliff · Aug 11 '16

Thanks for breaking this down. I had a difficult time understanding the theory, but your explanation made it very clear to me :)

properties (22)

`author`	timcliff
`permlink`	re-madillorama-re-dantheman-people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards-20160811t040306724z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-08-11 04:03:03
`last_update`	2016-08-11 04:03:03
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2016-09-10 19:32:42
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	128
`author_reputation`	272,954,445,077,789
`root_title`	"People Rank - Using Page Rank Algorithm for Better Curation and Rewards"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	739,398
`net_rshares`	0

@madillorama · Aug 11 '16

No problem. I don't get the whole post, but, I think I am close. I guess the influence doesn't really "trickle down". It would be more of an "equalisation" in an attempt to make a swarm of minnows voting power closer to that of a whale.

properties (22)