I don't think so ...
Of course you are right! How time sometimes can blur the memory ... It's much more logical that the delegation "return delay" has been adapted to the post rewards window than reversed. :)
I wonder if curation rewards should solely depend on the weight of the upvote? So that neither the date of the upvote nor the number and strength of upvotes of other users would influence the curation rewards of a curator (but only his HP and the percentage of the upvote).
I know that would make self-votes on comments etc. more interesting again, however, at least for the author it would still be more beneficial to get more upvotes than only his own self-vote.
So as curve for the author rewards we could stick with convergent linear, but for curation rewards the simple formula that curation rewards would only depend on the vote weight of the curator could apply?
I know the matter is complicated and maybe my ideas have more weak points than I am aware at a first glance ...
Someone actually suggested your curation reward idea recently. It may be better than what we have now, but one potential problem is it might lead to more self voting. That could potentially be countered by downvoting, but so far all signs point that downvoting just doesn't happen much, no matter how the rules are changed.
Interesting (and good) to know that this idea is actually being discussed, and that some stakeholders are aware of the suboptimal curation situation (which can be quite frustrating for users who try to curate manually)!
Concerning my idea, right, the self-votes are a problem, the flags part of a possible solution.
Actually, I would modify my idea above in a way that reduced the benefits of self-voting:
I know that the probability to see this last step is rather low ...
Some time ago I had the idea of 'diminishing returns' (against self- and circle-voting) when upvoting the same accounts again and again (within a short timeframe), but it seems that can be circumvented by creating many alt accounts (even if it still should be suspicious and detectable if a certain group of accounts only upvotes each other).
... I will keep thinking about possible other solutions ...
I don't understand why "self-voting" is considered a crime.
And if it's so horrifying, can't you just restrict it in code?
I wouldn't call it a "crime", but in case everybody just upvoted themselves there wasn't any (financial) incentive anymore to produce 'quality content'.
There also wasn't any reason anymore for new users to join, start posting, tell their friends to join too (network effect), and thus increase the value of HIVE.
That's not that easy (even if there would be ideas) because of the possibility to create multiple accounts.
I disagree.
Many of the largest stake holders merely delegate their stake to earn dividends (like (at)freedom).
They don't "create quality content" and they are fully "content quality agnostic" as long as they get their dividend payouts.
Most small to medium sized accounts are here to share their interests and hope to get a few pennies of encouragement.
And many forums (even small ones) disable self-voting.
It can't possibly be that complicated to enact, and at least it would signal to the "honest" that the behavior is frowned upon.
I never would have guessed that powerful players might destroy my rep for such a thing.
Especially since nobody clearly states "the rules".
And as far as "multiple accounts" go, the best fix for that would be to disable the automatic delegations for new members.
Many behemoth sites started out as "invite only" (it creates an air of prestige and exclusivity) and I'm sure people would even sign-up to voluntarily coach and sponsor new members with a small delegation (I know I would).
If the new member remained inactive, or only voted (or downvoted) on the same accounts over and over, after issuing a polite warning, the sponsor could withdraw the delegation.
No, you don't. :)
If that what you write is true, that doesn't mean that what I wrote was wrong.
There are several kinds of behaviours which are bad for the platform. Self-voting is just one among others.
That wouldn't prevent several accounts of a single user to upvote each other.
There IS financial incentive for small fish (who only wield below minimum payout votes) to produce content that attracts upvotes (from accounts wielding above minimum payout votes).
But it would disincentivize people setting up free accounts in order to combine their collective voting power (from automatic newb delegations) at virtually no cost (getting money for nothing).
Splitting your OWN stake between multiple accounts gives you NO advantages in terms of reward pool percentages.
Sure, but IF everybody only upvoted themselves there wasn't anymore.
And that's why too many self-votes have a negative effet on the platform.
Sure, but also no disadvantages. and these accounts could then upvote each other, which is nothing else than somewhat 'hidden' self-voting. That's why it's not that easy to prevent self-votes through code.