A configurable amount may end up with a race to the bottom. Big players may decide not to vote on certain posts based on this parameter and the content itself will not drive curation (not that it does right now but I feel that this will create the same problem but in the opposite direction).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They might decide not to vote on something - but not everyone cares about curation. I know I'd vote on things regardless of the percentage.
Would it make sense to bring votes from others (by sending them notifications of recommended topics) by referring them to mentions?
Example...
I like a specific content I found on STEEM. Then I know certain users will likely like to read and curate that content, but some other that do not give a shit.
So, what should the platform be able to do? if you mention people in a post and those people actually value the post where you commented on.. then you had some value in doing it... and you should receive better curation for it (aka more height). But on the other side if the mentions do not vote, then you should be removed from winning any rewards for any votes on your comment, and likely loose reputation, based on the amount of reference you are doing.
To prevent bots or bad users here is quite simple... let's make the weight of your rewards based on averages... make too many references to several others using bots and creating a wave effect, would be stupid, because, the higher the number of references, the same average it will create... and therefore not so optimal the advantage. If on the other hand, a very powerful wants to put some value on the post and for some reason, someone had mentioned lots of users to try to win some bucks, that user will actually lower the average per user... by being mentioning everyone.
Likewise, if the same user tries to mention only big users... and the content get's only validated by a single user. then the average will be catastrophically low!
The concept...
These mentions I am referring should be different from current mentions. They should be some kind of "recommendation" and should be seen as the user receiving the recommendation, filtered (highest to low rank) so, the useful recommendations are taken into account first. Also, the longer it passes without your mentions taking action, the less your curation should be.
This will likely solve, BOT auto-voting problems, thefts trying to impersonate people, SPAM, and too greedy readers that wish to strategically promote content using big references.
Does it need more detail? the idea? Shame I am not a good coder like you guys. otherwise, I would be creating my own commit already.
While I confess I am confident I don't fully understand the ramifications of your idea, I will say that this is exactly the kind of out of the box, original thought I most admire, and that makes Steemit to me like Heroin to a junkie.
Thanks!
Yah @jesta Your information is right.Thank you for your feedback.
Your argument, whilst certainly credible, is similar to arguing in favour of the minimum wage because not having one causes a race to the bottom among desperate workers, and thus output quality will suffer. This is possible, but I think in practice some natural equilibrium might be found if we allowed it to be, where the overall dynamic of the platform improved.
To manage the transition, perhaps we could initially limit the curation to a 75% maximum for example.
Unlike some proposals, this doesn't look to be too difficult to implement from a blockchain perspective either.
I agree that supply and demand will eventually reach an equilibrium. However the asymmetry in the distribution of Steem Power may push that point in favor of the large accounts at the expense of content producers.
There may be other business cases that are not centered around content production that could greatly benefit from a totally flexible allocation of rewards. In the end this may outweigh the possible negative effects. After all the Steem blockchain can be used for much more than social media or blogging.
That's true enough. The distribution could have a negative influence on where the equilibrium settles. The recent trend in greater whale delegation may reduce the impact of that too though by somewhat equalising the effective vote power distribution.
Yeah, a race to the bottom is what I worry about as well. I think allowing it to be configurable is a good idea, but between reasonably confined limits, not 0-100%.
I agree. 25-75% seems like a fair range to me, 20-80% at most.