Isn't all stake "paid for"?
How were they draining 6% of the pool without a 6% stake?
With their upvotes? or by some other mechanism?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Isn't all stake "paid for"?
How were they draining 6% of the pool without a 6% stake?
With their upvotes? or by some other mechanism?
people were front running for curation rewards.
Can't they still do this?
Why not just flatten the rewards (remove the timing bonus from upvotes)?
Or better yet, incentivize voting for the newbz?
To encourage large voters to vote at 0 minutes on themselves like they were?
To feed alt accounts, like some people do?
How would removing all timing bonuses "encourage" anyone to vote at 0 minutes?
which timing do you mean? the 5 minutes? or the order at which votes come in?
If you mean the 5 minutes, large voters will just vote at zero as there is no penalty.
If you mean having static rewards based on stake, the large voters will likely earn more than they do now as currently they lose some to the frontrunners.
I'm suggesting that curation rewards not be tied to timing or order.
That way, you'd stop incentivizing band-wagon-voting.
Simply amping-up the top earners doesn't give people a lot of faith in the "fairness" of the system.
If I wrote 3 fantastic posts every day, the best the blockchain has - would you be happy with each of them getting 2000 dollars? There would be no reason at all for anyone not to vote on me, would there? I'd deserve it too, as since it is the best on chain - it would be fair. Winner take all?
And, I actually think that it would bring more attention to Steem than spreading to the small accounts as it would make the news and everyone would want a piece of it. I'd be a whale in no time earning ~18000 Steem a day.
The best strategy currently for maxmiizing voting return is to spread it out, especially if you are a large account. Without the game in the system, it may as well be just give 1 vote a day to plonk wherever one drops it, as the return is the same regardless.
Perhaps there could be some criteria, like a Voight-Kampff test for the accounts to try and mitigate the sock-puppet "problem"?
Not a "captcha" or a "10 posts + 10 comments" or anything that crude.
Perhaps there's already some "good steemian citizen" list somewhere?
Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps they can give fingerprints and government issued ID?
Yeah, no. Even those can be purchased in bulk and would not be a good metric for "real-live-person".
I'm thinking something more like a conversation.
I see a lot of accounts that never post, or only post and never respond to comments, or others who only downvote, or only upvote.
It seems like some high-ranking accounts could "tag" accounts as "probably-a-real-person" or "probably-not-a-real-person".
Kinda like steemitboard's achievements?
the achievements on steemitboard aren't sensitive enough. What is needed is a web of trust system, but that hasn't been developed yet. I have spoken before about the trusted people being able to tag accounts, but unfortunately, some of the high-ranking accounts like that dick Kingscrown are shady as fuck and have many "secret" alts themselves.
I do trust some people here though as I have met many of them and chatted with them off Steem also. I have people I have given money to when they have needed, people who my wife will contact if I die to help her with my account and hundreds of people from Steemfests that are known and, I have had people come to my house, gone to dinner with them, visited them on my work travels. The thing is though, many of the people who are doing relatively well have already proven themselves as humans to enough people that matter that they get voted. The reason noobs should engage is to build relationships, to become human - not just another faceless, nameless stranger - regardless of the content.