reduce the incentive to pile votes on an existing popular comment for personal gain
& solving many other problems
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
reduce the incentive to pile votes on an existing popular comment for personal gain
& solving many other problems
This so-called incentive doesn't actually exist. You get curation rewards by voting before others, not after, and currently this is extremely front-loaded where later voters get little or nothing. Even in a flatter system where earlier curators don't take so much of the pie, seeing a lot of people already voted does not mean that a lot more will vote and that you will get a larger curation reward than just voting on something else like a new comment (unless you see this surge in voting early, in which case your vote is valid curation, predicting that the post will gain in popularity). The stated theory motivating the idea is wrong, though in theory the idea could still be correct for other reasons.
You are right, I just seek the opportunity in everything to kill the curation rewards. It seemed a good idea when I've first hear about it, but I don't think that anymore.
And before another greedy jerk would downvote me, I'm not talking about taking away that rewards. Actually, I would give all of them to the investors as a fair share based on their Vests. The fact that an investor have to vote to get interests is a joke (IMO). The only way to do is running bots, subscribing trails, and so on. What should I, or other users do? Subscribing to trails to give our votes to contents that we have never seen, never read? Because that would be the right decision economically.
And again, I have no problem with trails, bots, etc. But when it is for profit, people forget what they really like. And fake trends born...