You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Learning to love the voting power equilibrium point change
I have to admit that I don't fully understand your point about Alice and Bob. Suppose Alice discovers 5 valuable posts with her curation and Bob discovers 40 valuable posts with his curation. Why should they receive the same curation rewards, when we agree that discovering valuable content is a service to the platform, and Bob has discovered 8 times as much content for the platform?
Agreed. Why should Alice, in 15 seconds curating receive as much as Bob, who spends 4 hours curating?
If bob is a bot who spends 4 milliseconds curating you will see the reality of what we are trying to balance.
Isn't it at the expense of actual curators? What's the average number of times non-bot users have been voting per day?
And won't bots just reduce the weight anyway and keep voting just the same?
But what about all of the human users who are not bots who do in fact spend hours a day reading through content and curating, commenting, and just interacting in general to advance the platform? Now they're put in the position of either splitting their votes to an almost meaningless reward for the posters or simply decide to not upvote the content. And doesn't this reduce incentive to reward great comments as well?
The solution seems to add more complexity to the human experience while trying to resolve an issue that can probably be resolved in other ways. If bots are the target, why not introduce more bot-detecting or prevention solutions? It's not like bot accounts can't be fairly easily identified.
I agree with @ats-david and @bobbybillbob. The Alice V. Bob approach sounds involuntarily communist, in the bad sense. Thoughtful curating should be rewarded, not diffused. In this case, those who spend significant time and votes curating will be so careful to use their votes only on those that really make money, rather than on those that they think are good content. On the other hand, when we minimize the voting power of the bots, we, by default, increase the value of the human votes. So although the votes dilute after 5, even the diluted votes make up a greater percentage of the voting pool than they did before. They are worth more simply because the bots aren't factored into the voting equation as much. So it's not a total loss. And the premise is designed to preserve the humanity...which tells me the whales CARE about this platform.
I am not a bot! Yeesh. just like Steemit and have a lot of time on my hands :)