Curation rewards is the best thing about the platform. The only unique thing. We should go 50 curation 25 comments and 25 authoring.
Still though I like the idea of capping rewards. I wonder if we could lift inflation and use that to pay whales? If you just capped it I think that's also ok. It's like a dash masternode. Whales could run many moderating master nodes. Unless they all voted together (possible with bots) it would still redistribute power.
Perhaps the other answer is to have rewards grow expentilly till 250 then go up very slowly after that.
It is a very controversial part of the proposal. There are people on both sides of the argument. IMO - curation rewards are actually doing more harm than good. (I explained my reasoning in some other comments within the thread.)
I think you are right for the whale accounts. Curation is too easy to earn without reading with a bot. but limiting to under 250k (and still earning curation) might fix the issue.
It would suffer from sybil, whales could just divide up their balance into multiple 200 MV accounts and use the bots to vote with all of them, thus earning rewards again.
@jesta to prevent sybil, can we give moderators extra power? Say, a moderator with 300MV can nullify upvotes with 3000MV. Then we may have the issue that one moderator can counteract another moderator, however that's easier to be solved as it's an issue of a smaller group.
answer to @jesta (nesting)
What if we include TIME in the equation?(!)
200MV that are 6 months old should be "stronger" than 200"fresh"MVs
If users could earn curation for accounts under 250 MV, then the incentive for the whales would be to just split their large accounts into lots of 250 MV ones.
Can you elaborate on why they are the best thing, is it the money aspect or something else?
It's the most unique to pay people to sort through bad content and find good content and order it from best to worst.
First it's the easiest way to earn crypto currency. There is no other way for a common person to give a scarce resource ( his attention) and get crypto.( I would put crowd funding, not blogging as #2).
2nd it's a game. Finding and voting for something first is fun. The curation rewards are your score.
Third It's a business. It's almost like investing in a post except you are an activist and can drive traffic, resteem, or promote your investment.
Now other sites pay writers. Or maybe they facilitate payments through advertising. There are lots of ways to pay but it's not much different than a site that advertises and pays its users in bitcoin. This has been done lots of times and the sites paying the most will win and the ones with the most revenue will pay the most. A startup might win if it dominates a niche but most will fail.
For curation benefits there are no competitors. Maybe Reddit which uses moderators and votes but they aren't paying them and all votes are equal. The curation plus power function makes this unique. ( though I would say should be less than 2)
don't cut curation!
Upvoting good content is a natural behavior, users will do it regardless of the incentive. The fact that users assign real money to content and that they have a limited amount of it guarantees that only the best content will be upvoted.
The easiest way is to post content, most newbies have no clue about curation rewards and how it works.
The game is rigged by bots. I also use a bot and one week i decided to do a little experiment by manually voting instead, my curation score dropped a lot. The very large majority of curators are just subscribed to bots.
Also curators are encouraged to vote fast, this creates a situation where everyone upvote without reading any content, even manual curators they have no choice but upvote blindly.
More like lobbying
What better way to do that than increasing demand for steem..
Which sites?