Let's Fix Ranks on TRYBE.one - Do it right before it's too late!

Brandon Holsey Updated
 
0.0
 
0.0 (0)
5   0   0   0

As an early user of TRYBE.one, as well as a Steemit user since June 2017, I have some thoughts regarding the ranking system here. Many social platforms have tried variations of reputation and ranking in some form, however, I cannot point to a single successful implementation to date. I'd like to share my thoughts on the current ranking system of TRYBE.one and also my reasoning and observations for these considerations. I am sharing these thoughts largely because I enjoy this platform and hope to watch it grow in the future. Let's do it right the first time.

CURRENT RANK SYSTEM ON TRYBE.ONE

Novice - new member

Apprentice - 10k TRYBE required for this rank

Sentinel - 25k TRYBE required for this rank

Council - 50k TRYBE required for this rank

High Council - 100k TRYBE required for this rank

Elder - 250k TRYBE required for this rank

Seer - 500k TRYBE required for this rank

Grand Master - 1M TRYBE required for this rank

 

 

Why this rank system might be fundamentally flawed

Rank and Reputation - This is something to take seriously, as it is how we are identified by others. So what's the problem? The metrics. I do not believe it is wise to peg one's reputation to their wallet, but rather let their actions and level of contribution represent their reputation. There's a fundamental flaw here and we can see the real-time results. Elections around the world are won by those who purchase themselves the 'best' reputation that money can buy. We can all see how ineffective that metric becomes in society, can't we?

How about another example? Steemit.com based their reputation system on how large the user's wallet is and that essentially created more unforeseen circumstances than the platform was prepared for. Needless to say the rep system there is entirely meaningless since a con artist can simply purchase a high reputation. What's the point of the system if it does not even serve the intended function? We all know that answer.

Why I feel change is vital to sustaining this TRYBE platform

I have seen this site bloom into what it is now and I truly believe it has the chance to become a widely utilized platform. In order to achieve that, we must focus on the fine details, learn from mistakes and prepare for the worst. Rank and reputation is certainly not a mistake I wish to see repeated because the outcome is nearly guaranteed to be detrimental to our community. Let's learn vicariously from the missteps of others rather than traversing the same treacherous path, inadvertently.  Longevity is the name of the game. If we want to have a platform to utilize  -  we need investors. If we wish to have a platform that people utilize - we need creators. It's that simple. Without BOTH there can be no platform at all.

TRYBE might consider the fact that we need both creators AND investors in order for this ecosystem to function in harmony. I say reward them both! Just alter the way we rank them - split this into TWO ranking systems. One-tiered rank system for investors and another for creators/users. This would make life so much easier for the platform in the long-term, while also eliminating the less-than-incentivizing content creator rewards. Seriously, why spend time creating content for months on end if we can take 5 minutes on an exchange to buy the highest rank we can afford? There must be a better way.

You can see that I am now a TRYBE apprentice with my 24k tokens, nearly a Sentinel. However, I hold roughly 75k tokens total so if these tokens were combined, I'd jump up to Council (halfway to High Council). Personally, I don't think that is reasonable or fair to my fellow creators. I'm actually relieved that the tokens on TRYBE.one are off-chain because that means there is still time to improve this! Hopefully, the community can collaborate and find a resolution that is both effective and efficient.

Creators and Readers are equally important, let's not forget! Without them, we are building another myspace. How can they be as important as the investors? Great question. THEY ARE INVESTORS. Time is money, haven't you heard?! Content creators are spending time (=money), resources (=money), skills (=money) and bringing users to the platform (=money). We spend our time creating reasons to use this platform, so we are without a shred of doubt investors, too! Like I wrote in another long-winded article on Steemit, if you have an account balance of more than ZERO = you're invested - whether you bought or earned it. Same thing if you ask me. I am both the 'investor' and 'creator', but I still see an imbalance.

Let's reward the pillars of this community and watch it thrive. We just need to consider how we go about that. I strongly recommend a community discussion surrounding this topic, so please share your thoughts below. Time IS money, so let's do this right the first time 😉

If a high rank has extended functionality over the lower ranks, just think of how many high ranks will be inactive (wasting those resources by not using them). This is the case for Steemit already, largest stakeholders are inactive but hold control of most of the network resources. Those resources could actually be put to use but never will. Users who would've otherwise posted, voted and commented more often - cannot due to limitations of the network. Basically, you must buy power to use it (good luck with onboarding and mass adoption!!).  I don't want to see TRYBE go this same direction, so let's open a discussion.

I will be putting together a proposal for amending the current rank system and I encourage others to do the same. Please also feel free to chime in below and let us know what you think! To be continued...

DO YOU FEEL INVESTORS SHOULD BE REWARDED MORE THAN CONTENT CREATORS OF THE SAME PLATFORM?

ARE THEY ALIKE? OR ARE THEY SO DIFFERENT THEY SHOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO GROUPS?

User reviews

There are no user reviews for this listing.
Already have an account? or Create an account

Responses

  1. Ian Jeffreys @DNAian

    Brandon thanks for bringing this up! When I heard about Steemit a year ago I thought it was a brilliant idea but the way the voting system worked made me realize that it was just the whales voting for each other. I think it is imperative that a blog/social media site should reward content creators. If an investor wants to “buy” his or her way to the grand master status that is fine but they are not going to be rewarded if they do not produced content (posts or comments). I like the idea that Trybe has put a limit on how much each vote can be worth (even if you are a grand master). That way we won’t have the problems of what Steemit had with “whales” voting for each other and vote buying. I just hope that there are no voting bots like steemit as that ruined it in my opinion.

    (0)
  2. CryptosDecrypted

    Great community focused post. I agree with the rank divide proposal. Tokens earned through content creation and engagement lead to one ranking path. Purchased /airdropped tokens lead to another ranking path. Of course, tracking this may not be so simple once off-chain tokens become transferable.
    Number of posts could be an added metric – buy 1m tokens but post only once = apprentice. As posts are curated – post spamming could be monitored.
    It won’t be simple but a nuanced reward system that strives for fairness and is welcoming to new users is critical imo.
    I also believe a capped voting power is critical to the long-term health of the platform. Something along the lines up to 5 times the voting power of the lowest capped level. Reward for consistent effort and engagement but not out of control vote creep.

    (0)
  3. HyperTryber

    I don’t have much experience with Steemit or Trybe or social media and what makes it good or bad. But I do know that there is a lot of garbage on the web. Some kind of filtering is needed to separate the good from the bad. And the web needs incentives to improve quality, and disincentives to discourage spam or trolling.

    What if all posts, including comments, require some payment by the author? That would discourage some empty fluff and excess spamming and trolling. Many authors just write for love of topic, and could probably afford to pay to post. Posting and commenting fees would go to the hosting service (Trybe). Authors could stake some tokens to support continued hosting of their stuff.

    Thumbs up and thumbs down could be free (for logged-in users). The 5 stars rating system could be free. These simple mechanisms provide cheap effective feedback that don’t dilute good content with an excess of trivial comments similar to “Great post, thanks!”

    An open-ended tipping system could reward posts and comments that are felt to be especially worthy. The earned amounts need not be publicised unless the recipient wishes it. The hosting service (Trybe) could take a small percentage from the tip jars, and could even deduct a percentage annual account maintenance fee from tip jars that are not empty, to put tokens back in circulation if authors don’t bother to collect their tips.

    In summary, I prefer to see economic incentives that favour quality content, and economic disincentives for bad content. All content must cost. Good content can earn.

    (0)
  4. peter S

    Good point Brendon, and in time to fix it now that not all tokens are summarized yet. I agree with the suggestion to keep investor / creator tokens apart, and indeed both are important. Must be doable to keep track of the difference even when all go online. When it comes to voting, the weight of each class may differ depending on the subject that is voted on. Which brings the next problem, who decides which subject gets what weight from each class. But for many subjects it will be clear: some matter clearly for creators, others are important for investors. When this is not obvious, give both classes the same weight during voting. Curious to see some comments from the C-class Trybe team.

    (0)
  5. Nicholas

    Creators and investors both are important, so i think, two ranking system is good.
    Actually i dont think, we must separate them totally, because what about any people, who creator and investor same time?

    The current system is good, it can show us the in-platform work of the member, but it must be “upgraded”, with the investing status. Dunno how, im not so skilled in these kind of things, but with an additional stars, for example, the system can show, in 1-5 scale, what amount of investing/supporting have somebody.

    So the basic ranking can be the current, because that works with the contribution on this platform, and the investing need an extra one rank, imho.

    (0)
  6. firedream

    One of the biggest problems in Steemit was (is) everyone is writing and no one is reading.
    Second one, being the bringer of first one, it was not important what is written but it was important who writes it.
    Now, in Trybe the second problem is solved with a fair voting system.
    This should mean, we will have less problem with the first one.
    Having this in hand, I think since the investors ( whales ) vote will be almost equal to content creators vote, there is no problem in keeping only one ranking system.

    It is like, you work like hell to get rich and another guy is rich from the family.
    Would you expect to have different service in a restaurant?
    Let the community decide the value.
    FD.

    (0)
  7. Cornel

    @shrimp2whales I agree with you saying to separate the rankings between investors and content creators; however, if we succeed to implement this, I don’t agree with what other users are saying to cap the maximum upvote.

    On contrary, I think as long as you’re getting a huge upvote just because you constantly create content and engage, people would be more motivated to get a high upvote as well so they will start creating content, commenting, upvoting and engaging as well to get to that level.

    (0)