Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     5 years ago (edited) 

    It should only work if the vote weight is being reduced, otherwise, you could spam very small votes (0.01%) and adjust their vote weights once the curation effectiveness is known.

    A good example of my initial point is:

    Let's say I'm automatically curating a specific author, but a specific post isn't as valuable as I thought, so I want to reduce the weight.

    • If I'd do it now, I'll be charged additional voting mana and I forfeit my curation rewards (very bad).
    • With @vandebergs PR, I will not be charged additional voting mana and I will not forfeit the curation rewards, but it will be treated as an additional vote in terms of calculating the curation timeframe.
    • If we want the action of reducing the voting weight after a vote is being done to have the smooth feeling that it's just being adjusted instead of casting a new vote, the curation timestamp should also be preserved IMO.
    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       5 years ago  

      I thought of that, but if your weight doesn't change in the up direction, the rshares that you piled on top don't have curation weights associated to it. Granted, it might still be better than voting 100% at the later time to begin with, but have to work out those numbers.

      But if up vs down matters, I think treating as if you only voted late is the more consistent approach.

      (Btw I don't think vandeberg proposed treating as new weight. It looks like it will just be forfeited altogether, unless I misread)

      Posted using Partiko Android

      [-]
       5 years ago  

      (Btw I don't think vandeberg proposed treating as new weight. It looks like it will just be forfeited altogether, unless I misread)

      Re-read the post and you're right. Well, that sucks. Is there a technical limitation for that? Even if the vote would be added on top, the code could look for the newest vote from voters.

      $0.00
        Reply