I agree that this happens very frequently. I think they key is to align the actual easiest/best way to perform the desired behavior with the reward. That is to say, make it inefficient to cheat because doing it the right way is also doing it the best way.
Totally. I just don't know how it can be done, and I'm not sure if tweaking the distribution is going to "fix" it. It will most definitely improve the distribution problem, but the fact still remains that people are going to be casting votes simply because they earn a reward for it. The system encourages you to vote ~40 times a day to maximize your reward, without you caring what content it is you're actually voting on.
We don't have a system of discovery that's based on the wisdom of the crowd right now - we have a system that's based on the wisdom of profit.
Changing distribution method to
nand removing curation game things will reduce bot activities as well. But yes I also agree that even though the distribution is fixed, giving financial incentive to "just upvote" will encourage bot running with simpler algorithm.Yep, exactly. I agree that the voting weight proposal (n^2 to n log(n) or something along those lines) is a good idea and solves another aspect of the problem. Curation is creating its own set of problems though, which a change to the voting weight is not going to solve. You very eloquently articulated the main issue that curation rewards created.