They don't vote on the best though, only the most likely to make the most, some times inspite of lack of content. By capping how much is force funneled into larger accounts, would it not allow for the excess to be spread elsewhere. $100 being arbitrary, it could be $200 or $50
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It is not that simple. There are 'good' and 'bad' curators, where 'good' ones are the ones that are actually taking the time to search out and reward good content.
If they are finding it consistently at the top of the trending page, how hard are they truly searching? I have no doubt there are random votes that find there way to the netherlands of steem, but most votes are precast amongst a select group ad infinitum, I'm as guilty as charging in some cases, there isn't always enough hours in a day to seek new, and your favorites will always get the best of you. My idea in no way punishes good content creators other then removing some lazy votes perhaps, it punishes curators who become to complacent in riding the trending page and pop topics like 'steemfest'
The idea of diminishing returns would make it less attractive to upvote the same authors (including oneself) again and again. I described it like that:
"How about if after each vote on a specific account (including ones own account) each further vote on the same account would lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account? Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before."
I disagree with your assessment.