RE: Whales - Can the community buy out a portion of your influence?

[ats-david]

You got it backwards, curation rewards reduces the number of readers and voters.

Based on what data that can corroborate this claim?

Comments

[snowflake]

More users with influence means more readers. Also look at the comment section, barely anyone is voting.

[ats-david]

More users with influence means more readers.

Can you elaborate on this?

Also look at the comment section, barely anyone is voting.

Sure. There are lots of reasons for that. One of them is that it doesn't pay much to vote on comments. There's not enough incentive for many users.

[snowflake]

Can you elaborate on this?

More influence, means more inclusion, more involvement, more activity and ultimately more reading. If curation rewards are removed everyone will vote manually which will lead to a lot more reading too.

[jesta]

[nesting]
@ats-david

One of them is that it doesn't pay much to vote on comments. There's not enough incentive for many users.

You have two things you can vote on:

• Posts (which give a reward)
• Comments (which give no reward)

You also have a finite amount of votes to maximize your total curation rewards. This leads people to vote primarily on Posts, so they earn more rewards.

If you were to eliminate curation rewards, then there's no difference in voting on a post or a comment, which would lead to an increase in votes on comments, which would lead to more comments...

That's my train of logic, not sure if it's solid or not yet, but that's where I'm at :)