Pay-to-play vs. Proof-of-work -- is this way gone and done with?

More Comments = More Viewability

I had an (unoriginal?) idea on how to boost proof-of-work players (users who create and curate content in a genuine way) and I want to know if I'm out to lunch. Tell me what you think. Basically, the idea is that comments and engagement can boost your post to the top, not just votes.

What if comments and engagement were another way to inch a post to the top of the list so it was more likely to be viewed, and therefore, voted upon? I'm not talking about engagement points or credibility, although they still matter, but actually **boosting a post up the line in views** depending on engagement it gets, thus putting it out to more users the more engagement it gets?

For every X quality comment that occurs, it increases viewability Y.

Comments would need to be valued as well, in order to reduce gaming. Values such as length, variability in characters and words, number of unique users, etc. would go into play. But it could be valued to some measurable degree.

Other Platforms Use Similar Concepts In Their Algorithm

TikTok uses the same philosophy. If a video has views past 5 seconds, it gets spit out to more viewers. If it gets comments, it gets spit out to more viewers. If it is watched to the end, it gets spit out to more viewers. If it gets likes and physical touch-scrolling interaction, it gets more views.

We could do something similar here, within reason. There are ways to TRACK if a post is doing well. This is important because if a post is doing well, it is likely going to generate more interest and engagement on the platform. If something is liked, then other people will probably like it too, which means we should probably spit it out more so we generate more interest.

I wanna hear from the investors and whales

Is it worth it to you to attract more people who are not necessarily putting more money in, but who likely add value in other ways. Will you still get your investment back if we are taking from the voting pool? I talk about the minnow thing here.

What is the goal? Are we trying to attract more users?

If the idea is to generate more activity, increase enthusiasm, and attract new users, all while still retaining the current userbase, could this be one way to speak to the average new end user?

@sircork recently gripes about the pay-to-play kenundrum, getting high views and votes without any particularly intrinsic value. The post is here if you wanna read it.

@sircork's question is valid:

How can a post with 3 votes about something that is barely "quality" anything, be the alleged most viewed post when the two right under it (and we will discuss that in a moment) are MASSIVELY more viewed and voted on with the numbers to prove it right there. A flaw in the interface maybe?

Pay To Play Should Be Rewarded

I do think pay-to-play investors should be rewarded to a degree that encourages investing into the platform. But what about time and curation investors? Do we add to the value of the platform, or are we ultimately money grubbing by taking away from the REAL investors by receiving votes without putting our money where our mouth is?

It might make more sense to pay-to-play investors and to the platform at large to think long term as far as encouraging OTHER content and users to thrive as well. Not instead, but in tandem. We bring projects, DAPPS, smaller investments, games, networking, other investors, and ecology to the place.

Let me know your thoughts.

A) would this be too easy to game?
B) Is this already happening cuz I don't think it is
C) does bringing more proof-of-work users syphon away the HBD value from investors, or does it create an opportunity for more?