Point is we don’t want contentless post to litter trending even if the intent of those posts are good for the economy
That seems like exactly the sort of tradeoff that should be left to the voters. It is a clear judgment call whether good for the economy outweighs good for trending or vice versa.
Burnpost is a philanthropy
No it isn't. If you burn your own coins, that is philanthropy. If you vote to burn (i.e. not distribute) funds from the reward pool, that is a vote on how to best use the reward pool.
Voters should be free to be voters (i.e. express an opinion by voting without incurring an added personal cost to vote one way or another). There is no other way to fairly measure the value of burning vs the benefits of content on trending (given current UI) other than letting voters take that balance into account.
Not being able to downvote without a personal cost was the situation prior to EIP and it had catastrophic consequences.
When I suggest that voters consider voting later, that doesn't mean voters should be required to do this, or harassed if they don't.
I agree. But if they willingly do it, I am sure you will be okay with that.
This is actually an important point. I am curious to gather data to show if voting for the burnpost is better, or voting for a conventional content is better. I think @abh12345 still has a subscription of steem sql, I will request him to investigate that point.
@smooth, it is currently left to the voter. All we are trying to accomplish is the find a happy medium which give us a sort of temporary solution within our existing boundary conditions
I do hold a subscription, yes. Happy to look into the data with a little more guidance :)
Of course, as I said, I have been voting late myself all along, so I certainly don't mind anyone else doing it!
Not sure what you mean by "better" or how this would be researched.