50% of the rewards for clicking a mouse button... right... lol... that seems proportional to you?
As for incentivized downvotes, so then a whale can be incentivized to abuse others with flags by making money flagging people they don't like or want to piss off... that would have worked out great for me last year as the whale would have made money by targeting me, encouraging them to keep going when they were already doing it for months without incentives... lol
I had the same knee jerk reaction when I came through this suggestion. Thinking about it, it's one of the only ways to close in the gap in making curation communities at least on par with vote trading communities. Plus if this move is in favour of distributive voting behaviour instead of pure accumulative behaviour, then it could overall be better imo.
I think it remains that downvotes generally add to the platform rather than detract from it. Whatever you've gone through certainly isn't the norm and even happens on any platforms with downvotes. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting, make downvotes more useless?
I was just saying we don't need to incentivize downvotes and encourage people to use it more because they will be getting paid to do so in that case, and abuse it more.
I don't understand this part too much:
Can you elaborate? What's a curation community? How many vote trading communities are there, and that are visibly a problem? I'm not sure who these are... What's distributive vs. accumulative behavior? Thanks.
Yup I agree with this. Prevention by way of economic design is better, which is why there are the other ingredients in that burger above (50% curation, modest superlinear, etc).
Ok vote trading in linear is basically self-voting in effect. Vote trading includes vote exchange, vote selling / buying via bidbots etc. By definition, it's a content-agnostic activity aka not proof-of-brain. Curation on the other hand is not content-agnostic aka proof-of-brain. Alright, maybe community is not quite the right term, it's activity / behaviour. Now selling your votes is the best move that rakes in 600-1000% more than spending time curating. What we've proposed here is likely to bridge that gap.
Distributive vs accumulative is a way of framing curating vs vote trading. Maybe it'll be clearer here - https://steemit.com/steem/@kevinwong/distributing-wealth-should-be-equally-profitable
Edit: Thanks for asking me to elaborate. The gist of the proposal - it is designed to strike a balance between curation / distribution and vote trading / accumulation. The hypothesis is that voters will more likely use their votes for the long-term greater good stuff when it benefits them "sufficiently" in the short-term. "Sufficiently" here means on par compared to the short-term benefits of selling most of their votes away (which fuels content-agnosticism and unhealthy accumulation). Now that selling their votes away yields far superior short-term benefits, nobody's going to use their votes for the greater good (which fuels curation and healthy accumulation)..
Not nobody, plenty of people still do ;)
Removing delegation solves the ease at which vote selling can be done, and reduces the profitability of those buying votes. This only started because of delegation.
Under linear rewards some people have created bots and comment farming. They don't even have to click and get "free money" while the rest of us are on the treadmill trying to post stuff.
That's one of the issues.