Thoughts on Blockchain and Weku

last year


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.


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE WEKU!
Sort Order:  trending

I disagree with having the quantity of posts as a parameter, just yesterday I saw someone post a picture of their breakfast with the text stating just that and nothing more. For that they had at least $6. Other people work their asses off and get no more in rewards. There are many schoolchildren here as well and they seem to have few ethics. Maybe its just adults with immature minds. As you say, human nature rules.


I think it would be best to have quantity of posts as some type of relative parameter as I stated. Not just more posts, higher rep.
For example:
Average users might do 12 posts a month or 3 a week, low end producers might do 4 per month or one per week, spammers might do 10+ a week or 40+ a month. The system would figure out the norm and the closer you were to the norm the higher your score. This would account for a portion of your total Reputation score.

Also, the point I'm trying to address is why they were able to get that 6$ for that shitpost. If their rep was lower that might not happen. Reputation is at the crux of these issues, in my humble opinion, fixing how rep works will fix many other problems.

The reason I include that parameter is that people that don't contribute for months come back with thier Rep intact. Doesn't seem right to me.


I think the rep algorism may be hard to create. The spammers are always going to skew the figures. There are people that make a living from the blockchains and they will always be looking for ways to maximise their earnings. In many ways the algorism designer is going to be between a rock and a hard place.


That's why they get the big bucks


Maybe the wallet side and the content side should be separated just like Steemit has done.

It only gets adjusted up for the most part, rarely ever down,

If people were to wisely use flags reputations would be adjusted down

The rep algo is complicated and has many quirks, something i would simply remove is the influence of the stake in driving up rep.

I.E Mazinga can flag me to death My rep will not go down because my rep is higher than his.
However thanks to mazinga stake and the votes I have received from others with rep higher than me my rep is gone to the skies...

So Positive votes give rep even if their own rep is lower just based on stake, but negative votes only remove rewards but do not higher than the voter reps...



Presently nobody has yet to come up with a system that rewards justly. I think it is difficult to do that unless the owner of the platform can go through every post like a teacher who goes through his students assignment, and then give marks for the work. But we know that is impossible to do. So, at the moment it is up to each one to do 'whatever' they can to earn votes, and tokens. Not the ideal way, but that is the way it is.

I am happy I followed you. I am happy to know there exist people like you -- who still capable of thinking and considering things.

as for the ideas: sounds good and reliable.
probably adding this to algorythm would be a giant leap forward.
this 1-10 little steps from level 25 to 55 thing, always was sickening me, too

a little note: unless we have self-educating AI in charge of content analizing, these addings to algorythme (maybe) not necessarily defend us from the poor quality stuff...

I think the same.
We should look for some way to encourage real influencers to come to the platform. Those who have thousands or millions of followers in traditional social networks.
And that means rewarding them directly by the amount of likes they get in their publications.


That's a great idea, if someone knows how to make it happen.


Well. It i snot easy.
But for that, decisions must be based on converting the platform into a social network and not a way to get money out of it.

I totally agree! I am on this platform since a couple of days and have "reached" reputation "67". This is much faster than on Steem. Doesn't really make sense.

Personally, as far as rep is concerned I agree that the upvoter's rep should be irrelevant. An upvote for reputation should be an upvote the same as anyone else. Your quality content being liked should be a vote count for reputation. I think engagement should certainly be included as well as any participation in communities and welcoming newcomers with tips and assistance. Just my 2 cents.


Yes @squirrelbait I was thinking whether to make a post on this or just find an appropriate post to comment under. Engagement with the new comers is very important for the platform.. We should be encouraged to do it more often, otherwise, we lose some of them after the introductory post to the thought that nobody really cares what you do here. I saw one write an introductory post and none of the tags used signified the user was new, I deliberately did not mention in my comment, I only shared.. She got other votes, but no valuable comment. We should encourage the newcomers with the same energy we punish rule breakers, or we would be modelled to fail.


Absolutely and we should show them the ropes. Newcomers may have never been on a platform like this and so do not know which tags are available and what they do here. The example you gave is a perfect example. A newcomer doesn't know what tag to use for their first post. An online friend came over from Steemit and I left a comment telling him about the different communities and their associated tags. I reposted a few posts to let my followers know he made it here so they can choose to follow him or not. Be a big brother or sister to the newcomers. Not just online friends who come over but strangers too which I have done as well. This would build a strong platform that is enjoyable for everyone. You should do a post about this. More people would see it than a comment and I think you will find many people who feel the same way. Perhaps you would inspire some folks to reach out .


OK I'll try to make that post. Thank you.


All of those seem valid, just not sure how some could be quantized.


No idea. Not my skillset. I think coming up with ideas to improve the system and let the devs think about it helps though. A good conversation you've started. Someone just might come up with a beneficial actionable idea. Group brainstorming. This is good.