You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal

in #steem5 years ago

Anyone that weighs in on this post without actually digesting @vandeberg's latest post might be making a huge mistake.

We cannot eliminate such behavior entirely, but we can make it less economically viable.

This is the whole argument. I'm curious to what you really think of it. And no, not if Traf and his likes will profit or not.

Sort:  

I agree with this comment! Read Vanderburg's post also

That quote is factually incorrect. Code is infinitely mutable, and all financial incentive to corrupt curation can be eliminated. While some people will continue to act irrationally against their financial interests, currently it's irrational to not degrade curation for financial gain. Eliminating, rather than merely tweaking that incentive, can be done, and I propose it below in reply to the OP.

I flag trash. You have received a flag.

Traf doesn't want the vast majority of active stake taking part in mindless self voting or vote selling just to get staking returns, because that's seen as the norm now.

Traf can't afford/is unwilling to not do this to defend his own stake, but would much prefer a system where everyone is incentivized to act honestly with respect to voting behavior.

That's what these suggestions are designed to do

These proposals do not eliminate incentive to extract rewards from corrupting curation at all. They only tweak the returns a little.

Those incentives can - and should be - eliminated altogether.

I flag trash. You have received a flag.