You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: OPEN LETTER TO STEEMIT INC., THE WITNESSES, AND THE WHALES
"... so that it's more beneficial [profitable] to upvote good content..."
There's the rub. I haven't conceived a way to give a financial incentive to good content, specifically.
Any ideas?
@beanz idea sounds like one of the best I've heard honestly. My thoughts all revolve around making curation more profitable than self voting, but the problem we ran into when curation was "more profitable than it is now" but still not more profitable than self voting is that we just had circle jerks going non-stop. Then you see massive whale accounts, some still do this, going around only upvoting each other and creating multiple shitposts per day to use each others autovotes.
Well, I thought of making curation pay more as you curate more authors, and particularly new authors, but I haven't the chops to determine whether there is ever a 'price point' at which circle jerking is less emunerative under such a scheme - that won't break folks that upvote their friends too.
The solution I have come up with that will work NOBODY likes, or will like.
VP weighted by rep instead of SP.
It just ends the problem by removing the cause, which is that voting is a means of producing ROI, instead of supporting good content and driving an exceptional social media platform.