I have often felt that steemit needs professional content editors within the various tags, not high ranking members supporting their friends but honest evaluators. An editor would have the authority to promote quality posts to give them visibility. It's like when you submit work for publication, the editor says yes this is good and something that will fit the image of our publication, or no this is not who we are. The editor would not give votes, but put things in view they feel deserve a chance
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You touched on a very interesting topic, I do to believe we shall have moderators, independent and not use their powers to game the system. But although we feel this is the right way, we will have to face a lot of resistance because the opponents will argue it is all about networking, and time users spend on that...when done sufficiently, votes and with that rewards will be given to those who spend the time. Another argument the opponents will use is the one of trust of the moderator!
That is sort of the PoW and DPoW model. Its very difficult for a minnow to get support from a whale since the whale also needs incentive to help others. If you get 3-4 whales in a group they can propel their group forward more than a group of minnows could.
If you delegated the work of upvoting good content to a group of people, you've now allowed a set panel of people to do the judging. Ultimately you end up back at square one, centralization.
Aside from that, who would have the time to sort through that many post? you would eventually need so many delegates that you have to incentivize to do something the network would do for free. In that regard, I don't think editors is a good idea for this type of platform. Instead the communities features which is coming in the next update, will solve that problem because it allows you to create a microenvironment within the steemit ecosystem.
fyi, im about to fall asleep so if that doenst make sense, reply and ill try to clear myself up!