No, not at all! I just wanted to ensure I could address any concerns I could or try to answer questions.
You have edited your comment though so let me catch back up...
Ok, so first thing I agree that lack of curation is due to time and cost vs benefit. Cost being the time it takes to curate and benefit being the ROI based on that. Currently it is not profitable to curate and it takes time.. therefore people do what is easier.
The idea of the proposed changes is that there will be a clear incentive to curate rather than just abuse to get rewards or do an auto vote on a known bid bot user. With all three aspects combined it will now be most beneficial (profitable) for an individual to find content that does not have much of a reward and vote it.
I did point out that I don’t think large stake holders are going to take the time to do this (or other non engaging accounts) but they could very likely delegate to curators or join a trail, as now those actions would be profitable.
The downvote pool is actually the only aspect of the EIP that I think truly can change behavior here and that relies on large stake holders doing so. Because as you mentioned, smaller accounts can’t take on larger accounts.. the big boys have to do that 🙂 and many are already working together to figure out how they will do just that.
Smaller accounts can most definitely help with this by doing the same to smaller accounts abusing etc. We all can play a role in rewarding the behavior we want to see.
Honestly I do understand that downvotes have been used to bully in the past and there is even talk of having more of an organized effort to counter that. But if I’m honest I don’t feel this problem is as big as people make it, and I say that as someone who was bullied with flags for weeks (1000’s of them).
I believe we need an overhaul in the culture of downvotes and the only way to do that is to begin using them correctly.
I hope that helps. My goal is not to change everyone’s opinion or sell them on an the idea, just rather try to explain the ideas behind it so everyone can make an informed decision.
Thank you, Justine.
I think the editing was done after you read my comment but before I read yours. I often comment and then reread because I find the little boxes hard to edit on. You came back quite quickly and so I think this was probably the case.
I understand the reasoning behind the HF but I remain unconvinced that it will have the desired impact. If I am upvoting my own comment with high SP or I am a bid bot owner, do I not still get the Lion's share of curation? This is where I am not seeing the connection between the goal and outcome. Have I missed something with the rewards curve? That is definately possible.
To downvoting. I have dealt with far too many trolls to feel confident there. And to have your post downvoted after you have poured your heart into it. That is a large price to ask a minnow or redfish to pay. And may scare off a lot of people.
I think there is a better way but it would require rethinking the system. We have those useless rep scores, that so many people have botted to obtain. I think we should scratch them and instead have an engagement score and this score should be linked to payout. You can't get the full payout, unless you have a perfect engagement score. Everytime you upvote yourself, the score drops. Everytime you upvote a new account or comment, the score increases. We could stop worrying about bid bots because even if you have botted, you still have to engage to obtain the payout. Bot owners investement would be protected because we don't want them fleeing the blockchain either.
Large SP holders would only have to upvote and respond to comments and smaller fry would have to swim around and read, comment, and vote on more people to build their blogs. We could strike a much better balance between work, investement, and reward. And we could stop worrying about punishing the spammers. Because if they didn't in the very least support those that commented and upvoted on their spam, they would receive no reward.
No punishment but no reward without contribution.
Yes the most definitely was the case. I had it pulled up and had responded quickly and then when replying realized your comment was longer and wanted to ensure I read it first before continuing. I also am a read over and editor 🙂
For those self voting they already get 100% (both author and curator parts of their vote) so nothing changes for them in that aspect. That’s why the downvote pool is being included, as while you can give someone an incentive to curate with potential profit, if they make more just spamming and upvoting themselves then why would they do anything else? So self voters would only be discouraged by individuals actively using the downvotes.
As far as the ranking, rep and changing to more of a engaged platform by rewarding those who do so, I most definitely agree but don’t think the system you described can be acquired on a DPOS system as a whole.
This could most definitely be done with communities though that have their own “rewards” system and SMTs or tokens and I believe we will see that soon.
I believe this currently would even be possible through something like Scottbot and a Steem Engine token. It just has to be designed and made.
I do believe that we do need to better reward positive contributions to the chain and that’s why I am constantly spouting about “reward the behavior you want to see!” As I think if the behavior you described was what was rewarded, more and more would do it. Currently, we reward a lot of shit, so we get more shit 😕
Those that work the system do seem to get the bulk of the reward. That is so true. Appreciate your response and time. Thank you:)
I just wanted to point out that across the wider internet lots of people curate content without any financial reward. That proves that significant benefit is derived from curation outside of any financial encomium. I am confident we neglect that value to our detriment. Society is far more valuable than mere money. Upvoting content is probably done far more often without regard for curation rewards at all, as only whales get much financial reward from curation.
Substituting financial reward in this matter discourages actual curation IMHO. All curation rewards do is incite profiteering.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
Many sites all over the internet also have authors not being paid for their work. Curators here are essentially investors and being rewarded on an investment by contributing through curating beneficial content is sort of part of the appeal here... just like posting valuable content and being able to possibly earn a reward. If reward incite profiteering then that’s all rewards, not just one groups.
I think emojis and other ways to interact would be a great way to begin to have a culture not solely obsessed with rewards, but we aren’t there yet.