however, this notion:
value of the vote is irrelevant to the voter's HP
is complete nonsense, because anyone can make 1000+ accounts.
anything done to help "the little guy" also helps "the bot army".
maybe you meant something else by that, I'm not sure.
Go ahead and try making 1,000 accounts with 142 HP each. See if you can earn any curation rewards at all with so little HP. Then you will understand what I'm talking about.
Been there, done that.
Are you suggesting that making it easier would be an improvement?
In that case, a braindead staking system replacing curation would be a good start, because micromanaging and optimizing automation with reverse auction involved was 100 times harder than it is now. So the next thing people need to whine about is dust payouts until they're "rounded up" and just like magic there will be a massive influx of new accounts. Not new people, but we can pretend they are people.
notion of vote value being irrelevant to the voter's HP is nonsense
this is like saying blank account with no HP should have infinite RC
misunderstanding of what makes steem/hive viable in the first place
In the meantime the 'everyone's a winner' mentality for deleting curation is going to start corroding the lease market until the highest bids are all the self-voting circlejerk closed systems that are more prone to dumping all their hive than basically any other category of person, because curators can no longer outbid and compete with them consistently, which means the circlejerking operations just became a lot more profitable.
I don't know... it seems no matter what one does, someone will figure out how to abuse the system. All I know is that the current system penalizes the little guy and rewards those who already have plenty. If the little guys were given a fair share, I think there would be more on-boarding of new people. As it currently stands, the small account votes are worth nothing and all those dust votes are collected and given to someone. Getting rid of the 2-cent cut-off would be a good start. At least the small accounts would then have a chance of growing, albeit slowly. The other aspect I would like to see changed is that everyone gets an equivalent share of their curation rewards; those with more HP should not get exponentially more of the pot than the small accounts and voting on popular (large payout) articles should have no relevance to how much of a cut you get. That way, there is no need to vote for the popular articles and one could safely vote for what you really like rather than vote for the biggest returns.
I mostly agree on those points, especially the $0.02 cutoff, but I think there needs to be a way for someone somewhere to get higher returns from curation than they would get by self-voting, so that they can stabilize the lease market and make the worst kind of abuse much less profitable (this is what I was doing before the change).
Unfortunately for anyone that thinks things have just improved, as far as I can tell it's only true for the lowest possible ranges of curation, and anyone that was getting 10%+ has just been dragged down into that range. I'll be looking for the silver lining and if there is one, I'll find it. The benefits seem human-centric in the sense that they damage the optimal behaviors, turn the game theory more towards the exploits, but offer positive sentiments along the way and some extra freedom. I think being able to vote on whatever you want and getting the same return is certainly a positive for usability, but it is no longer "curation" and that's the problem I have with it, because those systems existed for very good reasons, and it seems like they were deleted rather than improved. (just to be clear, I don't think the old way was perfect, but I think it was in the ballpark)
Other than that, small accounts will always have small voting rewards, it doesn't make sense in any other way, because the rewards have to be % based to avoid bot army incentives. Even something as small as a penny being added as a flat value bonus would be most likely be exploited. The trick I think, is to make the exploit into something positive, a system where the optimal behavior is also beneficial, and I don't see things moving in that direction if people can just mindlessly vote through trending to get the same rewards as anyone else. Honestly it's so silly that I keep second-guessing myself to wonder what exactly I have missed.
OK, so how about DECREASED returns on votes where there are already many votes of large value? THAT will certainly make people look for those under-voted posts, don't you think?
sorry I'm a snail to reply, but yes, that basically describes the old system. I think the real problem there was that people were not curating accounts, but rather they curated posts, and some accounts were known to always get large value. It meant even the best curators were only doing 10% of their job after a while. If instead people got some type of curation for entire accounts, then maybe they are always on the lookout for new people, which I think would be ideal. Except now we have moved so far in the opposite direction I don't think anything like that will come. This new way at least lets people vote however they want, which is nice. I just wish there was something more optimal than circlejerking since those people can always win the bids on delegation, but before it was the curators that had the highest returns, and among those, it was the ones spread among largest number of curated accounts that were on top. Now that curation is gone people get less return for delegating, and are 10x more likely to delegate to someone doing shady stuff, since that's the most profitable thing to do now. Even though I like the freedom of voting on anything, it still seems like a major detriment. I really like if 'gaming the system' has a positive result instead.
That is too confusing to me. I don't know the difference between curating accounts and posts. But thanks for the response.