Yeah the last sentence is what I would worry about most. SMT's won't be launching till years end and by removing the reward pool I think you would be removing the biggest incentive for new people to join the platform. For all its downsides, steem has created something never before seen and there might be more bandaid solutions until we can reach an agreement on the proper direction to go.
Why not something as simple as a self-vote drains your voting power exponentially rather than linearly like a regular vote, this would do a lot to curb behaviour. Weighting content creators vs curators at 60/40 would also help with this. I think these little things could be enough to right the ship, but I agree with you that all options should be looked at and let the free market decide
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Of course, none of this can happen before SMTs are ready for prime time.
There's no way to separate a self-vote from a regular vote. People can make multiple accounts and end up with the same result. Agreed on the creator:curator split, but it's another bandaid at best.
Sometimes though a bandaid is all you need to fix a cut. I'm not sure we are at the point where surgery is needed to fix the problem, but there is definitely a cut that needs immediate attention. I think maybe focusing on good rather trying to stop the bad is one way to look at it. If those who curate are receiving sufficient rewards for their effort I think the snowball effect will take over just like the slef-voting epidemic has done ths far.
There are the obvious self-votes, and there is covert self-voting - like delegating or giving away steem power to a bot that will always upvote your own content, having agreements like "I always vote for you, you always vote for me" with other account holders of the same size, etc. I think it's not good to promote the latter.