When you do that, you only hurt the little voters?
He still has x% of the somewhat smaller curation pool.
It could make his share go up as a percentage of the whole?
I'd suggest burning him to the ground and compensating the collateral damage, but what do I know?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes it would hurt everyone and I guess turn his vote into something of a curse.
You've got me thinking about bot solutions to this now, or 'solutions' maybe a better way of putting it.
DVing and then posting other content and sharing the rewards of those in transfers to everyone else affected by the DV.
I'm sure it's codeable.
Yes, most everything can be solved by 'good' rules adhered to by 'good' people, iyam.
Where we find said people probably requires a crowd and much conversation to find 'the truth'.
Some will change to fit the rules, others will change the rules to fit them.
In the hive, I would say more need to change to fit the rules, rather than the other way around.
Greedy people are gonna greed.
It still makes more sense to me to burn him, and others that don't contribute 'good' content to the chain, to the ground.
This is a crab bucket, after all.
We have an abundance around us, we just need the greediest to leave a little for everybody else.
I'd make it a box to check on the 'is this a good person' checklist.