One example of how this impacts users is that when Steemit creates accounts for new Steem users, we delegate Steem Power to them so that they can use the blockchain. Due to this issue, Steemit cannot delegate to new accounts.
Wait, do you mean to tell me that one of the key functions of one of the key actors on the entire blockchain, the ability of Steemit Inc. to make accounts and delegate resources to those accounts so that they can function on the blockchain – was never tested for this hard fork?
Because if that is what you're telling me, why should I believe that the current Witness collection who were supposed to be responsible for making sure the hard forts could maintain basic blockchain functionality are capable of doing that? This is a massive, massive failure that should have never slipped through the cracks.
Seriously. Of all things not to test, that Steemit could successfully make and delegate functioning new accounts, the one thing the blockchain and social networks which depend on it all required to function, should have never been left to chance.
The goal of Proof-of-Brain is to reward people who create high-quality content as determined by the crowd.Votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people. If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards. If someone casts the same vote on something that is high-quality, the creator of that content should receive rewards. The reward should not be determined by the vote, but by the quality of the thing being voted on.
Yes, that's the goal. The problem is that this description captures the essential failure of the underlying design. You see, people don't vote to control what "the crowd" determines to be "high quality content." People vote to denominate what they believe high quality content to be – and intend to reward. When that content is not rewarded despite their vote, they become cranky, and justly so. They have accurately and perfectly observed that their actions have no consequence or meaning within the context you have defined.
The ultimate problem is that you have not created a system which is in any way proof-of-brain. On the contrary, you have created a system which is a betting pool. An upvote does not communicate that a user believes that the content is valuable. On the contrary, an upvote is a bet with a value people to the portion of SP which is temporarily unavailable due to placing that but, with the expectation that other people will recognize the target as worthy of putting a bet on themselves.
And that's all that it means.
It has nothing, literally nothing, to do with the quality of the post or the content of the post. A profitable ("successful") upvote just means that the voter has determined that others are likely to upvote on the same content.
This is what passes for "curation" on the Steem blockchain. Again, it has nothing to do with the actual content or with how useful, well-written, or well presented that content is – but only what the likelihood that other people will vote on that content is.
Despite the number of times that you say so, upvote is not a signal of value and never has been. It's a signal of what some user or by believes other users and bots will vote on.
As a result, it's not surprising at all that the content tends to be monotonal, unimaginative, and often mechanically generated. It doesn't matter if the rewards curve is exponential or linear – only that the underlying reward mechanic is based on betting on what other people are going to vote on. There is no value in voting for things which you find interesting, desirable, or creative, there is only value in trying to predict what others will find to be safe bets.
Uniqueness, rarity, and anything out of what passes for the mainstream of votes is actively punished. As you say, "votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people."
And since all of the above is scaled by SP, what you really mean is "votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by a whale."
If there is any surprise about the content which finds its way to Trending or why bots are rampant on the platform, it's right here. And it will never change.
RE: Delegation Issue