You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A brief note on community building and the role of government interference.
If a flag is rejected by the community, the flagger has potential to lose money.
unless we also applying the following rule:
if an upvote is rejected by the community, the up-voter has potential to lose something
else we will end up as a community where everybody tends to say yes to everything, and nobody dare to stand out saying no.
This is not my personal opinion on how to solve the issue. I was simply giving you an incentive model, an example. I didn't mean that that was my solution. I was just trying to illustrate my point further, sorry for any confusion.
nice clarification.
btw, the current curation scheme is actually biased towards up-vote IMO. (up-voters always has potential to earn something, while down-voters has zero potential earning while still losing his votes power)
if we were to make the game fairer, we should also reward the down-voters if a post end-up in a negative value in total-accumulated-votes.
but, to do this, we had to first decouple the curation reward from post-reward,
as suggested here: https://steemit.com/steemit/@ripplerm/proposal-decoupling-curation-rewards-from-post-s
Good point.