You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Bad effects of the small 'curation window'.

in #steem5 years ago

"Either there shoulnd't be a curation window at all, whereby then the curation reward should only depend on the vote weight but not on the date of the vote. In that case ones decision should depend on the quality of the post only and not on the fact who else has already (not) upvoted the post.
@pharesim opposed that then the 'maximizers' would simply upvote 10 random posts per day, to minimize their effort. Possible ... but then I ask why we are having free downvotes nowadays ...? :)"

But wouldn't be the result of this that curators wait till the last day and curate than the post with the highest payout ?

Sort:  

But wouldn't be the result of this that curators wait till the last day and curate than the post with the highest payout ?

If everybody waits, nobody can know which posts will have the highest payouts, :-) and in addition, if a high payout is divided by many curators, it doesn't necessarily mean a very high curation reward for the single user ...

OK good point, but it will be two advantages stay in my opinion:

  1. You see if a post has reached the minimum payout of 0.02 (more important for smaller accounts).
  2. You get the reward much quicker if you vote at the last day than at the first day.

Well, right, but don't forget what my idea is about: to make it less attractive to vote as fast as possible, even without reading anything.
I wouldn't mind if people voted late to get a faster payout, that's alright. :)