If equal-weight votes in first x minutes/counts, the strategy of bots would be just following the whales' or masses' votes before the period ends.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If equal-weight votes in first x minutes/counts, the strategy of bots would be just following the whales' or masses' votes before the period ends.
There is far less gain to that than trying to vote first. At best you get a small share along with many other people/bots. May not even be worth the consumed vote power.
I can't see how any system that differentiates between votes a very short time apart does anything other than heavily favor bots over humans. This is independent of other voting factors.
A small share? Aren't bots mostly used by whales?
//Edit: I see no issue on bots used by minnows.
Holdings have a return on investment in this system. That's fundamental in how it is designed, and will apply to any system whatsoever that avoids sybil attacks by weighing rewards by stake. The rich get richer is not, by itself, a problem, as long as it doesn't negatively affect categorization of posts, or appeal to a wider user base.
By "small share" I'm comparing it with the enormous share that the very first votes get in the current system relative to the later votes. That strongly incentivizes bots.
In actual practice all the current bots run by whales delay their votes 30-120 seconds and are rarely first, in fact often quite late in the mix of votes. As hard as it may be to believe, current whales are not trying to wreck the system for their short term gain. This by the way does not include me at all; I don't run any bots.