And... it's for the authors.
TL;DR:
encouraging more of the behavior that we want, and discouraging the behavior we don't want
Trending page is full of paid votes.
Paid votes are there because it's a great business within rules of current economics.
So many people sold their SP to voting services because they are getting paid for votes, votes, that are going to those who pay for them. Content is irrelevant in this scenario.
Those are not the authors we are looking for.
Empowering curation makes this game more complex than just: "sell your SP to bots and profit." and incentivize to look for good content instead of just selling votes.
Who will play this game .... looks to complicated.... why not just make it a job for someone ... more curies project, influensers etc ..
Hi, I am wondering if there was any discussion amongst the witnesses of some manual curation positive incentive versus negative incentive with the downvote pool. If we wish to encourage people to read posts and reward quality, perhaps we could give extra curation to manual curators and less curation to Bid Bots.
I know that Bid Bots attract investors to Steem and this is a good thing, but the curation system could be tweaked a bit, say 10% extra for manual curation or even 20% like the proposed downvote pool. I am thinking that one of the creators of Steemit thought we should build a system which rewards people for behavior you wish to encourage, so that it becomes in peoples best interest financially to do the right thing. Your thoughts?
Posted using Partiko iOS