Let me make sure I understand this correctly:
Let's say I post with SP and check the box to have my post reviewed by moderators. I then have only $5 in rewards on it at the time one of your moderators reviews it. (Moderator chosen at random or according to the tags, according to their interest?) The moderator likes the post, so submits it for upvote by the bot. Then whenever the bot upvotes that day, I get the upvote value from the bot of about $10, but lose 75% of my post's overall rewards. So if later my post value gets to $18 ($8 it might have reached normally eventually plus $10 from your bot) I lose $4.50 to the bot as beneficiary, plus my normal curation rewards. Of that $4.50, 80% goes to those who delegated SP to the bot to reward them for their delegation and the rest goes to the moderators to reward them for taking the time to review submitted posts.
Is this correct? Or please correct where wrong.
Btw, I really like SP and don't know anything about Utopian.
Yes it s the way it woks (you lose 25% not 75%).
In your case, if you usually make 5$ and the bot gives you 10$ , even after beneficiaries it is still worth it.
However, if you make for example 20$, it wouldn t be worth it for you.
The bot upvotes will be based on both quality and number of posts approved, so it each user will have to determine if the reward/fee ratio is positive. This is the way Utopian works, and I m guessing over a million in reward has been already distributed in there.
Yes, I meant to say lose 25%. How does the bot assess quality? Is that from what the moderator assesses and fills out on the questionnaire? Also, number of posts approved is done by the bot and you give more upvote % as the number of approved posts by that person increases? So not all upvotes from the bot are worth $10?
no, 10$ was an example, the upvotes will be dynamic based on quality assessed by moderators and other metrics, and will also be influenced by the number of contributions accepted.
Got it. My only remaining question is on the allocation of submitted posts to moderators. Is it random or by category? I write a lot of spiritual/psychological posts, for example, and someone who doesn't believe in those ideas might not consider something on the topic to be of high quality ever while someone who is interested in those topics might find some posts more meaningful than others. If I was moderator, I doubt I would ever find posts about memes of high quality, since I find them superfluous in general.
Good point but I guess it is like movie reviews. A good reviewer does not need to like sci-fi movies to be able to review one properly. Maybe moderators also need to be supervised/moderated/assessed
"Who is watching the watchers?"