You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change
I agree that the 50/50 split would be a big hit to content creators. I would be OK with that if I thought it would mean that we were doing a better job aligning upvotes with quality content, but personally I am very skeptical/doubtful that this would happen as a result.
The 30 minuet limit primarily benefits established authors who already have a voting trail following them.
In this comment you say the 30 minute limit primarily benefits established authors. In the next comment you say a 5 minute window would encourage finding undiscovered quality content.
These comments seem to contradict one another.
Not really. One end favors established authors. The other favors undiscovered authors.
A longer "curation donation" window favours established authors who have inevitable support. This incentivises curators to seek undiscovered authors instead because the curation reward won't be donated.
A shorter "curation donation" window favours the curator who can vote on ANY post that was not recognised within the first 5 minutes that it would be a hit. This incentivises curators to vote for @sweetsssj, @timcliff, @blocktrades, @acidyo, and any other established author who is almost guarenteed to make it to the trending page.
That will inevitably make new authors see the game as rigged.
I see your point of view, but I think it oversimplifies things and also doesn’t account for irrational human behavior. The goal of increasing curation rewards (by changing the window from 30 to 5) is to try and incentivize more manual curation. Generally the established authors are the ones favored by bots, so the hope is that with more manual curators, the less established authors will get more attention from stakeholders. Whether that will actually happen or not remains to be seen.
The bot owners will just reprogramme their bots to vote earlier and bots will be even more profitable. At least that's what I see happening. I'd hate to have to say I told you so. lol
I realize that. I don’t see this proposal moving the needle very much. My root level comment (that we are replying to here) was actually to question the effectiveness of the change.
Really more than any code change, what we need is a culture change. I am doubtful that we can achieve it, but if the people most involved in curation think it will help, I am not really dead against it either.
I am most in line with the #1 ranked root level comment in reply to the main post by @liberosist
But don't you think the 30 minute limit (or curation donation window as I call it) should benefit the established author? This actually discourages curators who seek curation rewards from voting for the same authors all the time, because once they become established the curation rewards are harder to catch.
Meaning it's more profitable for a curator to find hidden gems, which means new authors have a chance at growing.
Right now the incentives for curation are not very high. The 30 minuet window benefits the author at the expense of the curator. If we want to provide better incentives for curators to find and upvote undiscovered quality content, changing from 30 minuets to 5 will help with that.
I think it will increase incentive to vote for the same authors all the time.
Can you at least explain, where the incentive to find undiscovered quality content comes from?
You will earn higher curation rewards by voting on an undiscovered post than one that already has a high amount of rewards.