The point I argue is the the motivations, not the rules. Regarding curation the reward should be a compensation for their time rather than a purpose by itself. If we have an alternative reward for the people seeking financial benefit only, will they still curate? If caught abusers cannot get any rewards in the future, will they boldly commit? Impunity and mixed incentives would be important problem to solve.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think putting some pressure on investors to do some amount of curation and posting isn't a bad thing, from the point of view of keeping the investor "active" in his investment. Whale-level investors have options for opting out somewhat by hiring curators or delegating their steem, so but I note that most whales occasionally make use of their voting power. As an investor in many different coins, I can safely say that steem forces you to keep engaged and aware of what's going on, and I think is good for steem's "investment attractiveness".
I took your post to mean you would like to see a blockchain-based reputation system as a means of curbing some voting abuses. Theoretically, I think this is a fine idea, but it's one of those things where I think coming up with an algorithm that works well is a major undertaking (it's really a long research project, IMO).
Based on your comments above, I guess you're looking for a system that would allow the community to more effectively curb rewards from "bad actors" once they've been identified. This can be done I suspect without too much difficulty, but it will definitely increase the power of "whale-level" investors over the platform (or at least make it more easy for them to "ban" someone they don't like from getting any rewards). This may or may not be a good thing, it remains to be seen I guess.
Thanks for good thoughts. Regardless of differences, I believe we all seek success of Steem. Perspectives on investors and rewards are diverse and debatable, so I want to leave it open at this moment. On-consensus reputation system also needs long and rigorous research. But I think crowdsourced verification oracle can be a feasible option. Anyways, thanks for sharing your opinions :)
Yes, I don't mean to say your idea is bad. It may be a good idea, I just point out some potential issues. If we can come up with some simple, easy to implement version of it to try, I wouldn't be opposed to trying it in some hardfork, as long as we are ready to revert the change if it has unintended consequences.
hello @blocktrades
when you are visit my blog,
https://steemit.com/homesteading/@syehwan/tourist-places-to-release-the-burden