You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Pros and cons of two versions of Steem Proposal System
I believe it is too early to consider allocating funds to worker proposals from the inflation.
Having two separate system would make Steem even more complex and would divide the community's attention span into two different money allocation system.
The reason we are in this mess and the "content" rewards seems so misplaced is precisely because nobody at Steemit gave a real though about allowing people to disagree efficiently using their stake once they stumbled on the idea of SMT.
Step 1 one should be implement incentive that makes downvotes cheaper with an UI that doesn't stigmatize disagreement as being evil.
Enough with the placeholder content getting to the front-page with paid votes without a single downvote.
Agreed! Would be great though to already have a WPS to achieve this. Regardless of that, designing the incentive so it's not being abused is the real challenge here (and of course implementing it).
I think if we do the experiment without inflation, we're just going to rapidly find out that inflation is needed. And this will come at the cost of an extra hardfork, which is more expensive than it sounds because it puts the burden on exchanges to upgrade again.
I see the entire "content reward" pool as a potential "Steem ecosystem contribution" fund.
Content is just one type of contribution that I believe we have way to much of.
We could redirect all flagged reward to the fund account and it'd increase benefit to down-voting stakeholder. Currently if one believe that more than 50% of reward is miss-allocated down-voting it just moves around the reward to almost equally undeserving content.
From what I understand we need a monetary incentive and a governance system to decide and implement a better inflation allocation system. None of the dozens of suggestions made in the past were ever discussed or considered seriously due to a lack of someone other than Steemit being able to implement it and their stubborn focus on the wrong priorities like SMT .
Taking an arbitrary % of inflation at this stage is premature when we could be using the same stake weighted voting system we're used to to decide individually how much of the global reward should go to an accumulation account with a more sophisticated management.
I actually like that.
Smooth actually proposed using the proposal system as a means for allocating the inflation, and I thought it was a great idea (search down and you can find it). But I think it's too big a step right now; I think it should be done after we have the proposal system operating.
The way I read about authors getting 20% less is: abusers are 20% easier to flag.
That's just me though...