You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Bloggers: Would you mind sharing 50/50 with those that upvote you?
It shifts the incentive away from voting for yourself by insisting that a higher minimum percentage of your votes is used to reward yourself.
This continues to be nonsensical at every turn.
When voting for yourself, 100% goes to yourself. It can't be any higher than that.
What matters here is the balance between the alternatives. Both 50% and the current 25% are clearly still less than 100%, but 50% is a lot closer. Therefore balancing the incentives becomes more within reach at 50%.
A more extreme alternative would be 90%. At this point the benefit to self voting is only 1.1x and far less likely to be worth it. We'd likely see hardly any farming/self-voting at that point because it wouldn't be worth the risk of getting your trash downvoted for that extra 10% when you could be an average or even slightly below average curator, find some non-garbage and go vote on it.
We're in favor of 50% because (unlike say 90%) it is a moderate and the pain in terms of author reduction is relatively modest (33% reduction) relative to the increase in curation (100% increase) and therefore it is a number that has a good "return on investment" (using that phrase figuratively) when it comes to shifting of incentives.