You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change

in #steem7 years ago

To provide a response to each point:

  1. The premise here operates under the assumption that people care about curation rewards, which most likely the vast majority of the userbase would not. Those who are playing the curation game should absolutely know what they're voting on and at what ratio, but most users won't care.
  2. Those savvy users should have the right to do so, and use that as a tool for post promotion or alternate content types. If they want their post to be highly visible they should set the curation rewards at 75%.
  3. Is turning curation into a free market a bad thing?
Sort:  

"Is turning curation into a free market a bad thing?"

Ackshually... It is.

A society is more than an economy. Given the existence of folks that literally care about nothing else but money, creating a market for free speech inevitably causes freedom to speak to become treated as a commodity - and this demeans freedom itself. Monetizing freedom results to some degree in slavery for profit.

OTOH, it's preferable to being demonetized on ideological grounds, or being forced to listen to the speeches of Marvin Bush at gunpoint, until you pray for that sweet, sweet release only death can provide.

The market is unavoidable, so making it as free as possible is the best possible option for human freedom.

tl;dr Nope, it's the best answer.