I see. I am interested to understand your motivation and rationale for aiming to limit the capacity for curators to reward the content they prefer, in favor of a kind of averaging effect where all creators receive a standardized (or 'normalized') payout. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your goals here.
If all curators based their voting not on the content of the posts, but instead aimed to reward content creators who were not receiving any upvotes, wouldn't we completely break the essence of Hive - proof of brain? Wouldn't that completely negate the motivational mechanisms that Steem/Hive are based on? Wouldn't we also inspire people to simply create multiple accounts that churn out valueless content in order to receive upvotes?
there is a big gap between 'valueless content' and 'highly over-rewarded content'. There is a middle class. This middle class is what most of the curators are missing. Look around, and you will see them.
I am here for a long time. I know what hive is, please believe me. I call this my home. You are welcome, and thank you. That is all the time I have today.
PS.
We are handling 'valueless content' far better than 'highly over-rewarded' content, thanks to multiple anti-abuse projects. Like Hivewatchers, and Hive-DR and several other individuals are accounts who have downvoted some of these posts.
Total amount of downvote issued is insignificant compared to total amount of upvote issued on hive. This is a verifiable fact. Anyone can check it. Yet, multiple people have written posts about 'abuse of DV' however, I am yet to see a post of 'abuse of upvote' in any recent memory. You guys talk about 'alternatives'. Don't you find it funny?