Reduced rewards for voting after a post is already popular is not "punishing" those later voters, it is just recognizing reality that those votes are in a sense less valuable. I say in a sense because votes can be interpreted on different scales. If something goes from 0-100 votes, it is less valuable for it to get one more vote, but still probably extremely valuable for it to gets to a million votes. So something that discourages or even fails to reward votes 101-999999 is not necessarily the desired incentive structure.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My point was that disabling curator rewards for the first 4 hours punishes the early genuine voters that choose to cast their vote inside that window. Most regular folk would upvote and get on with their day, rather than wait to be eligible for rewards.
I agree, later voters should get less.
This is how I imagine @smooth's proposal visualized... and a little bit tweaked ;)
y0 = first voter reward
y1 = latest voter reward
x = time
bots would found at y0 position and the best humman curators at the top of the parabola !
PS bots should not shutdown (they still are valuable)... just let the human's get rewarded better for their efforts!
This bot detected images from a legacy source and decided autonomously
to upload them to the InterPlanetary FileSystem (IPFS)! The upload was
successfull and the pictures can be found here:
orig: https://i.imgsafe.org/fe709b3037.jpg desc: hash: QmRDXEaVSekJnuuj8GSQw4LL9C8hLBFhCanGbmZXd4Usoc/fe709b3037.jpgI don't think it would be too different to program a bot to circumvent this. You just delay the bot placing the vote until the reward period starts.