https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrencyMeta/comments/t29tt0/proposal_dynamic_karma_cap/
created by IHaventEvenGotADog on 26/02/2022 at 23:13 UTC*
13 upvotes, 9 top-level comments (showing 9)
The 15k karma cap, I don't like it.
Not the cap bit, I like that.
It’s the 15k being a fixed number each round. It doesn't scale with changes to the subreddit and fluctuations in activity.
I think capping the max amount that can be earned each round is necessary, so I'd like to change it to a dynamic system that will adapt to any changes in activity/karma.
I looked at **a lot** of ways of doing it in this post I made 5 months ago[1]. I didn't go any further with any of them though as I could pick holes in each system and find ways to manipulate it.
The cap is set at the 99.9th percentile karma score.
This roughly equates to the users in the top 0.1% on the list are all capped at the same amount.
This only negatively affects 0.1% of users as they will earn less Moons and positively affects 99.9% of users as the Moon to karma ratio should be higher than it will be now with a 15k cap.
Here is what the last 10 distributions look like:
For each round the karma cap is calculated by finding the karma score that sits at the 99.9th percentile. Then all the users above that score have their karma score capped at that amount.
For example in round 23, the 99.9th percentile karma score is 11,449 so the 43 users who scored above that would have their score capped at 11,449
New karma cap set at 99.9th percentile
This is what it would do to the ratio and also how many Moons those at the new cap would earn compared to the 15k cap.
So on average over the last 10 rounds if this system had been in place, the users at the karma cap would have taken 972 Moons less per round. Also the ratio would have been on average 0.005 higher.
​
Pros:
Cons:
​
What says you?
Edit: Oh and just if anyone else was wondering, if it was the 99th percentile then for round 23 the karma cap would be 1,788 with 424 users at the cap. That is how top heavy the distribution is.
Comment by fan_of_hakiksexydays at 27/02/2022 at 00:30 UTC
7 upvotes, 2 direct replies
There's a couple issues by going by what the top users are getting, instead of percentage of karma or moon distribution
It's never gonna be consistent.
You can have a few people getting high karma, or many. You can get very different results.
You can have people skewing that average with very high karma. If too many bad actors game the system and have 80K karma, the cap could still end up being 60K karma for those top users.
The karma cap was never meant to be something to punish anyone who's a top user, but to keep a single person from taking a big percentage of the distribution.
What about the times no one is trying to game the system, or moon farm, and everyone has low karma? People at the top will still get punished no matter what?
That's why I prefer proposals that change the market cap to a percentage of the moon distribution.
Like 0.1% or 0.2% of moons distributed that month as the cap.
Comment by SoupaSoka at 27/02/2022 at 06:50 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I appreciate the effort, sincerely, but *why* does the karma cap need to fluctuate with the sub's activity? Does it matter if the cap is 15k on a slow month vs a busy month?
This feels like yet another change that, once again, further complicates distributions. It makes the entire process very mercurial.
I just am not convinced we need to make any of this even more complex and less newbie-friendly, especially to resolve a problem that isn't necessarily even a problem.
Comment by Optimal_Store at 26/02/2022 at 23:43 UTC*
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Interesting. I like this because no user can ever know how the cap will be. A dedicated farmer would have to figure out wether its worth putting in the extra work while not knowing how much Karma a user in the 99.9th percentile will get.
Also, I like how it would adjust based on activity. On very active months it could be high. On months with low activity the cap could be lower. Though I do find interesting that round 17 had the highest new cap but the lowest ratio
Comment by TheTrueBlueTJ at 27/02/2022 at 00:48 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is a great idea, honestly. I have nothing to criticize.
Comment by GKQybah at 27/02/2022 at 10:46 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think this will only increase the gap between the ridiculous amount of moons that mods get every single month and the amount that regular users are able to get even more. Bad idea.
Comment by CryptoMaximalist at 27/02/2022 at 20:17 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This sounds like an improvement over the static cap, but maybe 99.8 percentile would be better attack prevention and more reasonable cap
Comment by [deleted] at 27/02/2022 at 00:08 UTC
0 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I’m not reading this. And I voted that I have a better idea.
Comment by IHaventEvenGotADog at 26/02/2022 at 23:48 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is from my previous post:
Having a different cap each round will also remove it as a target. I see a lot of users that "aim" to hit the cap each round. There are also the pro farmers who game the system with alts and switch accounts once they think they are at the cap. Its a lot harder to game something if you don't know the parameters.
Comment by MoonsPizzaGuy at 27/02/2022 at 18:58 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Good idea. Dynamic cap is must and the advantage is farmers don’t know the next cap they can’t know when to stop
