@kevinwong
Currently a very large percentage of voting is done automatically, without the curator taking any effort to evaluate the quality of posts..
The main game of 'curation' in it's current form is to try and upvote the popular authors before others do. With the change to 50/50 rewards, wouldn't this behavior still continue?
There may be some small incentive to actively find good content, but I worry that we will just be paying more money to the users who are not actually spending the time and effort necessary to actually curate, and are just upvoting the same authors because they know that all the other auto-upvotes will follow.
I'm not really against voting bots or auto-upvote trails, and I don't necessarily disagree with your proposal, but I also struggle to see how it is going to solve the root problem of curation. I don't know if throwing more money at it is necessarily going to incentivize better behavior.
I'm hoping you (or someone else) can make the case that it would actually incentivize a behavior change.
Thank you. Receive the phat one.
People, most people will go for the profit and we will be right back to were we started, a few getting rich.. but this is how we are conditioned, this is how our world operates. To make this platform fair we would all have to be enlightened....I don’t see that happening, this is the desire realm...hehehe
If curators make the most profits why should I create articles and art?