I would also prepare an implementation of separate reward pool for flags. I wouldn’t implement it at the same time - learning from past mistakes where many changes were implemented at the same time and it was hard to asses which change was the cause for certain actions.
The sad truth that the well-known images will always receive a lot of rewards is here to stay. First of all I don’t think that increasing the curation rewards would drastically incentivize even more people to start voting for those well-known figures. In fact it’s more profitable to find newer faces that tend to receive some rewards at the end of the day (successfully tested) and increasing the curation reward would greatly incentivize the behaviour of finding new people.
The matter of "familiar faces" is a different problem and should be targeted by the reward pool for flagging. I say “should” because I don’t see any other option for now and I’m fond of the incentivized flag option…maybe I’m wrong here.
It’s just a brainstorm...
I’m also happy that you mentioned the VIT. Unfortunately they have basically started with the 40/60 curation/author split, therefor we can’t use the platform to predict what changes it will cause. From a very casual look the distribution of rewards there seem quite even and the users are definitely receiving significant curation rewards. I can honestly say that I’m very incentivized to power up even more VIT. The problem is that the its impossible at the moment but that is different story:D.
There is a ton of talk about separate pool for flagging. It just hasn’t been decided how big it should be. 10% of upvotes? 20? 50? 100? Are the common answers. If you exhaust this, you can then draw from your upvote pool for flags.
The problem is the cost isn’t the only issue, most users are afraid of retaliation and even with free flags that won’t change. Spammers and bad actors have nothing to lose and will flag without mercy. This poses a unique problem for spam fighters and anyone who wants to use a dedicated flag pool.
I think the majority of people using this pool will end up being bad actors. As it is, many of us spam fighters get little to no support and no one will counter those flags.
Flagging is a lost cause. It's only a matter of time until apps start posting encrypted text in order to implement some sort of privacy scheme within their community. How do spam-fighters decide what to flag then?
The developers need to look into auction theory and use something like a second price auction to protect against abuse with upvotes only. If you model voting after the 2nd price auction, you'd throw out the highest vote when calculating rewards. That would force a bad actor to split their stake in half, which would limit the harm that can be done.
I think Google uses the second price auction for pricing ad-words because:
Hopefully, a similar mechanism could be found where voting one's true value would also be a dominant strategy.
77 68 61 74 20 61 72 65 20 79 6f 75 20 74 61 6c 6b 69 6e 67 20 61 62 6f 75 74 3f
Wow you actually made something original. I’m impressed. Funny how you think flagging gives me your steem though
Your posts are shit and zero original thought. But to answer your question, both my vote and the votes I countered go back to the reward pool for everyone else.
So a flag literally gifts two equal size votes to the reward to increase the rewards of all other posts.
If I flag $1 off a post, that’s $2 available in the reward pool to every other post and comment.
But costs me $1 worth of potential rewards I have to sacrifice. That is the opposite of greed.
i know it's silly (and looks a tad narcissistic) to ask someone to look above and checkout my comment for consideration but.....