You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change
I have read your article and realize that you 10 month so ago made near the same proposal as blocktrades has now.
Thank you reading from the bottom up and considering upvoting some not so wealthy stake holders who have made some good comments!
My proposal wasn't the same at all...
Seemed similar to me. You had 50/50 curation in your post as the example.
You're right I did say curation rewards for new users could be 50/50 and that would scale down as the authors following went up. This would have the opposite effect to what @blocktrades is proposing though.
I was actually referring you to the comment by @sigmajin which explains that the system I was suggesting is already in place during the 30 minute curation donation window. In my opinion that window is not big enough and reducing it we would increase the incentive to just vote the same authors all the time instead of seaking out hidden gems (such as the comments you directed me to)
Glad to meet you @beanz. Have good day.
Wow... this is already old, but to see such discussion...
is kind of unsettling...
i feel like the OP has a point there, and all i read going onto here made sense... what made u guys disagree? we are ONE this community, are we not? would be awful to see world war 3 start here xD
Well, I think even Genghis Code couldn't forge the Golden Horde of Bots from this community.
That being said, I agree with you, and we should be Steem against our enemies.
The sad truth is that in every community, no matter how powerful, or oppressed, there is a struggle for power within it.
Steemit is no different.
Thanks!