4% cost is not enough. It still incentivizes vote selling and taking private gains from the common reward pool (which then leads to a race to the bottom of vote selling) over directing payouts according to even subjective value.
Directing some of the rewards to @null would help offset the difference and make this less harmful and therefore more socially acceptable.
Interesting. Thanks for digging up that data.
That's pretty cheap attention anyway and one must take into account that curation snipers will emerge, which will improve the vote buyer's ROI.
Purchasing votes defeats the intent of “proof of brain”.
4% cost is not enough. It still incentivizes vote selling and taking private gains from the common reward pool (which then leads to a race to the bottom of vote selling) over directing payouts according to even subjective value.
Directing some of the rewards to @null would help offset the difference and make this less harmful and therefore more socially acceptable.