An image widely used on Weku, created by me for which I have never taken credit until now, it is just one of many things that I have contributed and never taken credit for.
Someone knowledgeable on the subject recently said to me that it would be good to make a blockchain that was by invitation only.
On the "By Invitation Only" point, I started thinking that if you were to do that it might be good to make that publically available info:
"Sponsored by: ..."
That way people are held accountable for those that they bring to the platform, and also everyone that arrives has a responsibility to the one that referred them to the platform.
But this also got me thinking about some of the problems that I have noticed in my time here on Weku. If I could design my own blockchain social media platform, what would I change?
One of my major problems with Steemit clones it the reputation algorithm. It doesn't make sense. In my experience it seems mainly dependent on who has upvoted you and how high thier Reputation is.
It seems to me that it should be based on things like the average amount of comments, the time that you have spent onboard the platform, how many upvotes you tend to get on your posts.
Not that it should be nessesarily in that order, but these seem to be more reflective parameters than what seems to be the case.
Honestly, I think this is one of the biggest problems with the Steem blockchain structure, maybe the biggest.
As I think about it, I'm not really sure that the Reputation of the upvoter should play any role at all in the determination of someone else's Reputation.
Recently I took a new user from 25 to ~56 with one 100% vote. I just happened to notice this, but I think that is something that should never happen. This dynamic only motivates circle jerks
Instead the algorithm could be something like:
- Time on platform- 20%
- Average votes per post- 20%
- Average comments - 20%
- Average rep of upvoter - 20%
- Quantity of posts per week relative to other users - 20%
This doesn't have to be the whole algorithm and it would take a bit of coding but I think these are the ways that social media blockchain can be improved.
Point being: Make Reputation a more reliable indicator of the value added by that user to the platform.
Right now it seems like a poor indicator. It only gets adjusted up for the most part, rarely ever down, and even users that are inactive seem to always keep their Rep
I would also go as far as to say that total vested shares might need to have a slightly negative overall Reputation effect. This would limit whale influence which seems all too often to turn into a self fulfilling prophesy of Reputation, power, and earnings.
I think the underlying structure created by Dan Latimer was genius, but I also think he built in a lot of possibilities which serve the overall structure of blockchain, but don't account for human nature.
I think social media platforms like Steemit and Weku need to tweak other dynamics to account for how people actually use and/or abuse the system.
For instance, somebody shows up with a shit ton of coins. Human nature always says follow the leader. Then suddenly, of course, this new user is everyone's best friend.
But why should they have a great Reputation right away and the associated earning potential?
Shouldn't they have to work just as hard as everyone else had to get that coveted reputation?
No offense to @nnnarvaez, or the newer investor accounts, (a valuable addition to the platform), but watching how quickly they developed thier Reputations was quite sickening to be honest. And I've seen that happen with others repeatedly, who add no value but are in the right circles from the start.
This shouldn't happen
Anyway, these are my thoughts today and possibly some food for thought - for you.
Have a good one.