I agree. But it could also turn around the other side, Tim... Giving more curation could also attract bots and false curation.
So in my view, the system has to have some kind of credibility (reputation) before you can jump on such high differentials. For example, low reputation should star at High Author percentage and accounts should be more affected by bandwidth when posting (and less when commenting). Then the more you go up in reputation, the more you can set the bar to allow only curators to receive rewards.
I agree with this. Bots will find a way to find all the posts with higher curation rewards and start upvoting them. I think these guys are overthinking it. The curation rewards are fine the way it is but I'm open to hear other ideas about this.
Exactlyyyy!!
It will be more inclined towards curators in terms of revenue generation.
But yes!!. The platform should provide author with more options to decide.
That's right... so, why not incentive everyone to behave and provide good input and value to the platform, right? By allowing only good reputation to strive, we give public opinion the power to decide. And that's what counts on steemit!
You'd have to stop Steem Power being buyable though (otherwise Steem becomes a buy your way to becoming rich issue)...
I disagree with your statement, I think it would do the opposite. Vote buying is the result of a decrease in curation rewards. ( when steem forked from 50/50 to 75/25.) At this point it became more profitable to sell your vote to a bot than curate.
So increasing curation rewards should not attract bots? Will not the sell vote to bots apply here?
Can you clarify your view. I still can't see how you are seeing it.
Thanks
New users will be able to promote their posts by giving higher curation rewards and whales like myself would earn good curation rewards by voting most posts, there will be no need for services like randowhale,etc...these services are just taking advantage of a weakeness in steem.
OK. Point taken.
Only one more question...
Are we then saying that we agree with money being the monopolization factor? Being that... the more you invest in STEEM the more you will win?
I can only agree to the above if, both high reputation and weight can play together a somehow equivalent play. Meaning that there should be another valuable attribute that balances the fact someone could put 1 Million on STEEM, make lots of random curations and then come out without any consequence. For me, this is not acceptable. Money should not be the only way to decide the future of the platform.
My view. And thanks for yours.