They would count though - if the post/comment they voted on got other votes too. Let's say we set the threshold to 0.10 SBD. If each user votes and adds 0.01 to the comment, and the comment gets 10 of these votes - then there will be a payout of 0.10.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Please take a look in this comment section and see how many comments did get 10 upvote or more. And here a lot of wintered stemians are discussing not a lot of newbies.
Take a look at blogs from red fish or plankton and see how many comments or view they are getting. I really don't find it realistic from a beginners viewpoint.
I did this comment of you multiple times. Do you remember how hard it was to get ten upvote to a post? Let alone a comment!
I'll ask you this question though: from an investor standpoint - for people looking to buy STEEM with the expectation/hope that it will go up in value, they see the rewards pool as the funding for their investment. As investors, they get to vote on the content/contributions that the feel are going to make them the most money. Does some random person commenting on a post that few people find valuable enough to upvote add any value to their investment? Are any of those comments going to increase the value of STEEM?
Don't get me wrong, I do understand that you are trying to fight spam and did come up with a solution! As we can see in the comments the steem blockchain has several populations. The whales and Orca, the upper class, the dolphins and minnows, which are the middle class and the red fishes, which are the lower class.
Lots of interaction is going on here, which is good with such an important proposal to the system!
But I did read all the reactions and I think that we can say, that the sentiment is diverse!
I do understand that you are willing to protect investments, but we have to be careful not to disrupt the ecosystem with the change, which I think that could be possible.
Lately I did read a lot of post if we should run our blogs with the heart or like a business, also there the sentiment was mixed!
Your proposal does give me the feeling about running it like a CEO, where you do want to protect the investors more than the employees or customers. I compare it with a company which is making enough profit but want to make more to satisfy the investors even more and therefor firing some people to decrease the costs!
I'm honest that I don't have another solution, but I think that we can agree that no matter whatever solution will be chosen that we will never to eliminate SPAM! Look at all the mailboxes in the world. Lot's of spam prevention has been enforced and still spam rules the mailboxes!
Maybe we should better educate the users so that they won't reward SPAM!
I'm happy to discuss this further with you!
Good suggestion :)