IF there are no bad posts, only bad curation, what then?
Should downvotes only apply to curation rewards?
Should downvotes first apply to curation rewards, and when those are gone, then apply to author votes?
Should downvotes have a toggle back and forth?
Only taking curation rewards, or author rewards, as the curator deems appropriate?
Years ago, when I first got here, 'we' used to have these discussions all the time.
The last few years have been spent in a dismal haze as far as prescriptions for what ails us.
It's just been a holding pattern waiting for what is decided on high to be revealed to us.
Are you are tired of paying your masters to bomb children in far away places?
Perhaps it is time you pushed back on that.
A simple way that anybody can do that is to hoard your coins.
The fed buys coins at face value from the mint.
A dollar of change in your pocket is a dollar of value out of the banksters' pockets.
Stop playing in their shell game that allows them to play in the amusement parks from hell and shop in the human grocery stores.
What is '50% more reap'?
Also, I'll agree to almost anything that reduces financial incentives to curate, as such incentives replace actual curative interest with mere financial avarice, which deranges curation and degrades Hive marketing. I prefer curation rewards simply go away. They are not only useless, being unnecessary to convince people to upvote content they like as myriad platforms without any financial incentive to upvote content have continually demonstrated since Steem advented, but are counterproductive, and actually harm curation, as Trending reveals.
Thanks!
I think it's the love of money that makes trending what it is.
Greedy folks gonna greed.™
IF we keep changing the rules to suit ourselves soon we will have no game to play.
We've already reduced most of the gamification.
50% more reap refers to the fact that nobody really ran their mana down below 50% because it was voting intensive, now they can easily vote it all and only play the game one day in five.
This will increase volatility in the rewards.
While also allowing access to 50% more stake than yesterday.
You can already play the game 0 out of 5 days through delegation, autovotes, and curation trails.
Yes, and now one's lackeys need only show up one day in five.
What wasn't happening before was accessing that last 50% of one's hp.
Nobody not here just for the money needed this change.
You're just making stuff up show me these accounts and the change in the behavior.
Nothing is going to change these bots are already programmed and there's no reason to change them to do the kind of stupid shit you're assuming they will. There are still bots that vote at the 5 minute mark from 5 years ago. Change is slow. No one is being incentivized to do less work than they were already doing. Doing the work was always optional.
Look at their voting mana, those lower than 50% are proof.
Should be pretty easy to pull that number.
Might take a while for folks to notice and change their behavior.
But, this is an easy metric to track.
I vote 20 times a day.
Now my vote power is 0%.
Behavior didn't change.
Sorry do you want behavior to change or not I can't tell from these responses.
If you could go ahead and name one single hardfork change you agreed with that would be great because I'm beginning to suspect these are automatic contrarian takes.
I did vote my mana down. That's why I reduced my vote weight to 25% years ago, so that I could vote more without depleting my vote mana - and I still depleted my mana until I exceeded the dust threshhold too often.
I think downvote is harmful to the community if used intentionally.
Well yes, if you don't care for curation you just drain votes to zero and call it a day until it recharges...
Let's just obsolete that tool. It's dangerous (promoting psychopaths to the top) and archaic (We have the tech...and They keep it hidden). Then, We will not worry about all the technicalities that come with it.