Implementing Vote Beneficiaries

This is a very interesting way to do this and I am looking forward to how it is going to work in practice. I see several potential applications for this feature later too, but let's see :)

Mmm, mysterious guy :)

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Woww that's great..

Interesting new idea!

> Since the comment is actually created by @steevebot, the author reward goes to us (curation rewards being disabled for the comment).

If you disable curation rewards by setting allow curation rewards: false in comment_options, that reward will go back to reward pool. Isn't it better to reward the voter?

Am I getting right or there is something else?

Nope, actually it's the other way round. If you vote 0 seconds after the creation of the comment with curation rewards on, all the curation rewards go back to the reward pool (reverse auction). But if you disable curation rewards, everything goes to the author.

We would prefer having curation rewards on, but then the upvote would have to be made 15 minutes later and that's currently a difficult thing to do for us. Hopefully in the future we will be able to do that.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Thanks for replying. I didn't know that. I though if curation rewards is disabled it goes back to reward pool no matter when you vote.

Now it seems like a solid business plan. Good luck! :)

Hello, my comment has nothing to do with this publication ... I just wanted to know something ... a few months ago I received a message from a robot that said that Hr1 was no longer a witness and that I removed the support on my witness list ... I do not know if it's true and I still have you as a witness ... I really do not know if that affects anything ...

I never ran for a witness, but I think you can approve anybody.. But thanks anyway for your trust! :) If you want to support me, consider checking out @steeveapp :)

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Ah ok. :)

>But if you disable curation rewards, everything goes to the author.

We ran some tests on this a while back and discovered that allow_curation_rewards = false doesn't do anything at all.

Thanks for joining in the discussion. When did you make the tests if I may ask? Because allow_curation_rewards = false definitely does something - the post then has total_vote_weight of 0 even with positive votes on.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Some months ago now; long enough that I don't even remember who it was that started the discussion, except that they thought the same thing as you do - that authors could turn off curation rewards by setting that flag. That's obviously a pretty big deal if true, but it turned out not to be.

However you should definitely do your own testing.

That is an interesting idea. Though, I am sort of lost in the numbers. One, even though you disable curation rewards, you will not increase the author's rewards. (Or did it change?) That means you are able to get 75% of total pending rewards. Two, you claim that you take 10% of the original vote weight and use it for yourself. I'll use examples to better explain myself.

User wants to vote 100%
A) Does the user vote 100% for the post and you use another 10% for the comment?
B) Does the user vote 90% for the post and you use the rest 10% for the comment?

A), it's 100% vote plus 10% tip for Steeve

Regarding the first part, I explained it in another comment.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

I saw that, but we saw in the past that disabling curation rewards did not increase the author's rewards. Thus I asked whether that part changed. I guess I will need to check that. But if you are sure about that, then it is good.

Well, I looked and this is what I found out. But I guess I should double-check.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

The code part that we discussed in the past (and did not spend more time on it anymore) considered this code.

• https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1786
• https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1691

To my understanding, if curation rewards are disabled, that part is nulled and is not added to the author's rewards. In other words, they stay in the pool.

Perhaps @crokkon may help with that. I didn't want to interfere with the plans, just sharing our previous experience with the same attempt.

Now I am really confused. As I understand the code you referenced
share_type author_tokens = reward_tokens.to_uint64() - curation_tokens;
it says when curation_tokens are 0, author takes it all.

But according to @tcpolymath it's not like that.

I ran a new set of tests (the ones I did before making this post are less conclusive than I originally thought), but their results will be ready after the payout in 1 week..

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

The line you refer to precedes the pay_curators function.

https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1789 this code splits the rewards into authors and curations.

But then https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1791 is there to split curations rewards amongst the curators. At this point, you have ca 75% (won't claim exact numbers) in authors rewards. However, pay_curators returns 0 (= curation_remainder) and max rewards (= curation_tokens) will be 0 too.

https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1794
https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1797

In both cases, zero is added and authors rewards stay at 75%. Then the beneficiaries are calculated, which may decrease authors rewards even more.

> At this point, you have ca 75% (won't claim exact numbers) in authors rewards.

Where did you get the 75%?

On line 1788 you have full rewards in reward_tokens, right?

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

As I said I am not claiming that the numbers are right. However, the rewards are split in 3:1 ratio, therefore authors rewards make 75% of total rewards in the end.

Yes, it appears so that in rewards_tokens the full rewards are included.

Edit: https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L4897 Curation rewards ratio.

I think you're right :(

get_curation_rewards_percent takes comment as a parameter, but doesn't do anything with it and returns always 25%.

And then in pay_curators there is this piece of code:

if( !c.allow_curation_rewards )
      {
         unclaimed_rewards = 0;
         max_rewards = 0;
      }

Which (imo without a reason) resets all curation rewards to 0. I opened an issue to find out if it's a feature or a bug.

Thanks a lot for pointing that out! We will have to update the way how steeve vote beneficiaries are implemented, but the general idea is still valid.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

bump to follow this thread when the results come back from the newest test. hope you will provide your findings here @hr1, thanks.

I just did.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

I have the results of the test. You were right, disabled curation rewards returns them into the reward pool.

I created 2 test comments and upvoted them right after. The first one had disabled curation rewards, the second one allowed. There is no difference between their author rewards (except the few satoshis due to the decreased voting power on second comment).

curation author rewards curation rewards link disabled 0.098 STEEM and 0.098 SP 0 https://steemd.com/b/28565512 allowed 0.094 STEEM and 0.095 SP 0 https://steemd.com/b/28566233

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

This is what i call technological innovation, creating a bot that serves it main purpose

I'm very happy with this development @steeveapp and have enough RC's to cover the additional comments.

The only issue would be for people who have low RC's but I don't think @steeveapp would earn much from them anyways (since they probably only have a small amount of Steem Power).

Maybe you could exclude charging people with a small amount of Steem Power @hr1 and increase the charge for people like me with enough Steem Power.

I'd be happy to pay 15% of my vote or even 20% of my vote for posts that I found through @steeveapp. I wouldn't have found them without @steeveapp anyways so I am happy to pay.

When you have more users you might be able to run a poll to see how much your users are willing to pay for your service and a lot of people might be very happy to pay more (like me).

QUESTION

I don't want to set @steeveapp as a beneficiary for all of my @steeveapp upvotes but I want to upvote the @steeveapp notification comment at 100%. Is there a setting to allow that?

P.S. I'm really happy that it will automatically notify people that I found them through @steeveapp since I have had to tell people manually in the past.

> I'm very happy with this development @steeveapp and have enough RC's to cover the additional comments.

@steevebot is going to be creating comments, you are going to be voting only.

We actually discussed excluding people with little SP yesterday. It is doable, but there are actually not that many accounts with so little SP, we think. In any case, this can be added later if it turns out to be a problem.

> I'd be happy to pay 15% of my vote or even 20% of my vote for posts that I found through @steeveapp.

It would probably make sense to make this configurable.

> I don't want to set @steeveapp as a beneficiary for all of my @steeveapp upvotes but I want to upvote the @steeveapp notification comment at 100%. Is there a setting to allow that?

Not exactly sure what you mean here. First, we are not going to charge you for all upvotes through Steeve, just those on recommended stories. And those notification comments you would like to upvote 100%, which are those? You said earlier that 15% or 20% would be fine, so what is this number related to? Which of the beneficiary comments you would like to upvote?

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Sorry for the confusion @void.

I am accumulating Steem right now, but once I have 3,000+ Steem Power I want to set my contribution for @steeveapp to 15% to 20% for recommended posts.

In the mean time, I want to contribute 100% of my vote to the @steeveapp comments for recommended posts since the contribution would still only be .004 to .007.

Yeah, I will probably make it configurable.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Thanks @void.

I check the @steeveapp regularly to see if it is usable and sometimes I find really good authors with it. Other times though it is too slow, like today.

There is also the issue with iPhones that It won't scroll down inside posts unless I switch it from mobile view to desktop view and back and forth each time I open a post.

Someone said they already submitted a ticket for this a couple of days ago but I wanted to make sure you knew about it.

I really enjoy the design and logo. Thank you @void 😊👍🏼

Yeah, you probably mean this issue.

Not sure when we will manage to get to this as we are seriously lacking human resources for the web app.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Ah okay @void I have been using the web app thinking that is all you have.

Is there an Android app for @steeveapp?

Posted using Partiko Android

No, there is no native app. It would anyway make more sense to just improve the web app to serve as a native app. The whole app is already cached locally in your browser, we would just need to add a way to navigate through the app without the browser address bar.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Yeah, I agree @void spending time to develop an Android and iOS app would probably be a waste of resources, especially given the current circumstances as a start-up and the bear market in cryptocurrencies.

• The 2 apps I use are @steemit and @steeveapp.

• Posts from users I muted still appear in the @steeveapp feed when someone resteems their post.

This causes problems for me since I am following someone who consistently resteems posts from a person I muted. If you can solve this someday it would improve my experience.

Thank you for all that you do @void I am really enjoying your app!

You can create an issue in the issue tracker, but it seems that this is simply the way Steem works at the moment. I can take a look later if you create an issue.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

@steemit hides the posts from the people I mute, even when it is resteemed. Sometimes I see the posts for a split secind but and then they disappear @void (on Steemit).

P.S. I will create a ticket soon but I need to create an account first.

Benefactor vote weight is now configurable in Settings. Can be se to 10% - 100% and it is relative to the original vote weight, not absolute.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Will my vote help @steeveapp, even though it is only worth $0.004? @void

(I am wondering if I should wait until my vote is worth $0.02 before changing the settings to 100%).

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

So you're solution is to spam the blockchain. I'd facepalm if you could see it...

I'm a huge fan of Steeve's "Read Next" feature...but this...is not your best idea.

We are thinking about the upsides and downsides of each feature a lot and would never do something that would be a waste of blockchain resources. See for example this discussion with @gtg.

First of all, this feature doesn't need to be there until infinity. When the proportion of all Steem votes going through Steeve would become too high, the information value of the comments would decrease significantly. So there would be only the financial aspect. Then we can decrease the number of comments by making let's say 1 comment per 10 user votes and give it 1 beneficiary vote for all of the 10 original votes.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

> See for example this discussion with @gtg.

But this is entirely different volume of traffic ( compared to weekly post with aggregated data to showcase best picks, etc. )

So what is this "spam the blockchain" about? Does it really matter as long as we have enough RC? We are just using the tool we have. It's the blockchains problem there are no native vote beneficiaries. Such a feature would be totally logical IMO.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

The fact that you're making comments advertising your tool below any post upvoted from it that was discovered thanks to your AI. I have a tiny account and I know that technically I could post more comments than I could physically type. Can doesn't mean should.

If you want to use a feature that doesn't exist, you have to create that feature. What you're doing is creating replies to a TON of posts, advertising your service, which is by definition spam, and then using the keys you were given by users to use your tool to upvote your spam comments. Even if it's at a certain percentage, that's just...dude...no.

From what I know, @hr1 told me that this feature was requested, but it was rejected for some reason, I think that he mentioned potential technical issues?

Well, there are two parts to this feature. The beneficiary one and the spread the word one. We could potentially just keep creating foobar comments under a foobar post and use that to collect all rewards, that is true. I guess that you would like that better. On the other hand, calling these comments spam is just your view on the matter. Look at @chrisrice above who likes the feature actually.

And as @hr1 pointed above, we are not saying this feature will be on forever.

Thanks for your comments in any case, any input is valuable and we are considering it. It might be just a bit too early to judge before the users had any chance to see it in production and comment on it.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Interesting way to workaround the current limitation. Previously, I have also thought of using similar method to solve the problem where rewards are not given for upvotes after 7 days of content creation.

I think this will be an interesting experiment. Looking forward to how it will turn out :)

Posted using Partiko Android

upvoted and resteemed because it's a nice idea.. good luck

Posted using Partiko Android

Thanks!

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Benefactor vote weight can be now aligned in Settings. By default se to 10%, but can be raised up to 100% of the original vote. So it is relative to the original vote still, not absolute vote weight.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

I might need someone to explain this to me more in detail ... i would like to help

Ahhh, so here it is! I am looking forward to see this evolve. Keeping a close eye on Steeve ;)

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Hello. Congratulations for the initiative, I have a question: does publishing the post by the steeve app using any specific tags give the possibility of being voted as happened in the old busy.org? thank you.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Hi @pedrocanella, thanks! Our upvote program doesn't discriminate any specific tag. Anything that becomes popular on Steeve deserves the upvote!

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Im ready to test out Steeve.app but i was not able to sign in using the Keychain extention.

I get this error:
[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQuQkoQXSeaXpcB5sDq8bPuG8cwwVsyt8JqJveQaks5sk/error01.png]

I have provided both Active and Posting key, Keychain wont accept the Memo key.

Is anyone here using Keychain on Steeve?

When adding the Memo key from the Permissions tab on Steemit, i get this error:

[IMAGE: https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmbjH5A9Ycm26Gy4Aki7jyh3bPjWmvgYfqPwJmVNm461V8/error02.png]

Isn't the problem that your memo and master key are the same? That would be a security hazard which could cause you to fail to log in..

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

This has been solved over Discord.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Yes, thank you. I had to remove and start over with the Master Key.

Yes, thank you. I had
To remove and start over
With the Master Key.

                 - gbg

I'm a bot. I detect haiku.

Dear @steeveapp

Just decided to see how have you been doing, since I didn't hear from you in a while. I noticed that you didnt post anything in a while.

Did you give up on Steemit? :(

Yours,
Piotr

We didn't give up on Steem.. Steeve is still running ;) and we're doing some maintanence, but we had to dial down the effort.. So, we're not that active in posting and doing updates, but we're planning on promoting Steeve's choice more!

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

If the story beneficiarie is set to steeve, is that only for entries I work on steeve or on all condensers...?

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

The settings are specifically made for our platform -> so it will be set only for entries created via Steeve.

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Thanks for the answer... Good to know!

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

May I ask you why "steeve's choice" is showing only posts in spanish?!

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Steeve's choice is created based on votes/ratings/comments which are happening over our platform. It seems so that there is a community which found out about it and is now using Steeve more than anyone else.

We want to promote Steeve (and Steeve's choice) more, so that more variety of posts (and languages) would appear in Steeve's choice, but we have troubles finding time for it now..
Hopefully we'll get to it soon.. :)

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface

Feel free to promote Steeve's choice - if you know about quality content which could profit from it! :)

Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface