I think this merits discussion/implementation. With the amount of users there are it is easy for a great post to become buried. Some posts also make way more than they should simply because someone with more weight votes on them. Such weight should only be applied in full if a post meets a threshold of upvotes or something of the sort
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Agreed, sounds reasonable. Thing is though.. I have a vague feeling that the originators of the site wanted it to become unequal.. a lot of the rewards and the way they are granted feel like they were thought up in a rush, and people didn't take the time to think them true.
But hey.. when there is ICO crazyness all around you and everyone wants to beat each other to be first on the market.. what else could we expect?
I'm still rather new, when curating something, does the weight of all upvotes after yours only get split amongst the people who upvoted before you? There are seemingly only 10-15 people willing to dig through the 500 new stories every few hours. If the first question is the case, Would distributing curation amongst all curators after a certain threshold increase curation?, In comparison to the current method whereby simply being the first few curators brings in the most reward?