Yes, but their net influence will be diminished and they'll be crowded out of the reward pool by those who are inactive and make few votes. A bigger problem is it's going to hurt newcomers. Most people don't even know what voting power is. We'll have a lot of newbies at 0% soon enough, and being forced to ration your VP is just the kind of barrier that limits engagement.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I tend to agree with this line of thinking as well. It doesn't tend to uncomplicate things and tends to go the other direction instead. If people can't spend enough time on the site to use their voting power, there are plenty of curators for hire that can...
but they won't get down to 0%; each vote past the "limit" takes a percentage of the remaining VP, not a set amount
so let's say X = the limited voting power, and Y = remaining vote power
relatively inactive users spend X
vs active users who spend
X + (X-%Y1) + (X-%Y2) + etc etc
I do get the point about rationing votepower, but since I tend to upvote as a "like" rather than as a curating strategy the valid argument doesn't resonate with me. Not saying it's wrong.
It's a figure of speech, let's say to down to nearly 0 to satisfy the pedants in us :)
;> I understand that LOL