Are you capable of coding curation rewards for down voters?
I'm not.
However, an ability to deliver doesn't put a cork in creativity, that I can tell.
Why are down votes discriminated against?
Are they second class votes?
'Good people don't down vote!'
Smdh, didn't we fork off from those folks?
I mean, you can't fix stupid.
Ignorance can be educated, but stupid sticks.
What? You a hater?
I bet I've thrown more flags than most of you reading this combined have.
I was throwing them when they still had a cost.
I was there when Anthony began creating SFR for us.
I follow multiple down vote trails.
You should, too.
Imo.
Well, now we got a chance to make a real crab bucket out of the rewards pool.
Instead of down votes being a cost of defending the price, they can be a source of rewards for community members willing to fly the flag.
If the total of the down votes is more than the up votes, curation is figured for the side with the most weight!
Can you imagine the epic flag wars?
Fought for money by the greedy.
Bread and circuses, seriously.
However, I think it is time for hive to show some maturity.
Time for our largest stake holders to show that they have more than milking the reward pool for all it is worth on their agendas.
Have we collectively learned that it can't be all for one, if you want others to play your game, too?
Instead of building defensively to mitigate the damage of abusers, let's incentivize abuse hunting.
The number of abuse fighters are small.
They mostly want to earn rewards, too.
This can benefit the ecosystem, if we let it.
I think coding it is not the issue as much as having solid incentives and checks/balances to make sure the downvotes aren’t gamed.
Sounds like only a centralised approach would help, which is not desirable to be honest.
I just want trail leaders to have an idea of what the collective vote is worth.
Otherwise we waste mana.
Maybe @mahdiyari can help us.
I get that.
@reazuliqbal's Flag Trail script actually checked the rshares to calculate how much to use when we had it.
Well, we sure got it now.
Hopefully that few days holds true.
"Are you capable of coding curation rewards for down voters?"
If I understand correctly, that would be more than a matter of coding. Such a deep change to protocol might require another hard fork, and all the pains and friction that comes with that.
Still, I like the idea.
"Why are down votes discriminated against?
Are they second class votes?"
It would seem so. It seems that you and I may agree that downvotes are as useful and helpful as upvotes. Unfortunately I find that we are in the minority.
"Instead of building defensively to mitigate the damage of abusers, let's incentivize abuse hunting."
I really like the sound of that. The incentives for abuse seem much greater than the incentives to fight abuse. At least the incentives for abuse are more direct if nothing else.
However I'm not so sure about the mechanism you describe, though it isn't very specifically expounded.
Currently, as I understand it, curation rewards come from a portion of rewards a post gets overall. Downvotes don't generate any post rewards to draw curation rewards from, so where would the rewards come from? How would they be scaled?
Your vote is worth x.xx, whether that is up or down.
50% of that goes to curation.
The side with the most weight gets paid out.
I think what we need to ascertain is the abuse vectors, and whether that abuse is less harmful than the current protocol.
Right now SFR is way over powered, there isn't near as much abuse, at the level we handle.
The whales, of course, still have impunity to self vote, circle jerk, and flag us all to oblivion for making eye contact.
I think adding rewards to negative curation will liven up the abuse hunting game.
It will also allow bad acting large stakeholders more rope to hang us with.
But, it is a worthwhile discussion, imo.