You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

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

in #steem • 7 years ago

I will copy -paste just a few sentences, telling about the roots of a problem:

  • “good posts” aren’t rising to the top of the trending page and topic pages like they should
  • one of the advantages of Steem was the additional of a financial incentive for good curation
  • the current blockchain rules favor self-voting over effective curation

Changing 30 minutes to 5 minutes....I don't know if that's going to change anything, as most bots are already set to vote after 20+ minutes after post is published.

7 years ago in #steem by
$0.03
  • Past Payouts $0.03
  • - Author $0.02
  • - Curators $0.01
1 vote
Reply 7
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago 

    You're right - the problem is much larger than just this, and this won't solve that larger issue.

    But the 30 minute rule for curation rewards is just an unneeded complexity in the system that needs to be made less complex. Each part we make simpler, the easier it'll be to solve the entire problem.

    [-]
     7 years ago 

    "Each part we make simpler, the easier it'll be to solve the entire problem."

    So this!

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago 

      I think this is a good way of thinking...

      Each part we make simpler, the easier it'll be to solve the entire problem.

      This would make it easy to find the problems in it after simplifing it... and make it easier to find problems in other parts of the system since making one part simpler will decrease its effect on other parts.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        Just changing 30 minutes to 5 minutes would probably have little impact at all, I agree. The more important part of the change is to eliminate the transfer of rewards from curators to authors when the curator votes during the window.

        [-]
         7 years ago 

        And what is the possibility, whales will show any interest for this kind of change? If this is going to be processed at all...

        $0.03
        • Past Payouts $0.03
        • - Author $0.02
        • - Curators $0.01
        1 vote
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        Of the whales I've talked to, most seem in favor of the general idea, at least as a first step towards improvement.

        $0.10
        • Past Payouts $0.10
        • - Author $0.08
        • - Curators $0.02
        3 votes
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        Many good ideas to think about.
        Here are a few more that might help simplify things:

        1. Why not make all posts automatically self upvote to eliminate negativity?
        2. Self upvote rewards can be set to be the same, according to Steem Power, for all by steemit to pay the same (or not pay) curation rewards to the self upvoter (author). I understand that some whales and dophins use self upvoting for a good return on their investment, and a good return on investment encourages investors to put more money into Steem Power, so a steemit wide automatic self upvote could help reduce negative accusations and simplify things.
        3. Should upvotes that don't even open the post be eligible for curation? Maybe the length of time a curator-upvoter spends on a post (up to maybe 5 or 10 minutes or ?), the more curation % he/she can receive from said post.
        4. All upvoters could share the curation equally regardless of who upvoted first and how many minutes after the post up to 7 days, except for the amount of time spend on the post. This might help reduce the advantage of bots upvoting.
        5. Maybe to help minnows build Steem Power, all posts can receive a small minimum participation reward of Steem Power, like maybe 1 Steem Power (or?), limited to 1 post a day or ? Of course great posts can still receive great author rewards.
        6. Of course junk posts should not be encouraged, and negative votes should not be encouraged. It appears we may need a volunteer board of trusted judges to determine if a post that is brought to their attention is junk or not. And if a poster continually posts junk, he or she could be kicked out or lesser punishments as the judges determine.
        7. Please combine Math, Maths, Mathematics to default into one subject as there aren't that many posts there to require 3 separate subjects for the same thing.

        Thanks for reading these suggestions to ponder.