The issue of engagement and of distributing wealth in proportion with perceived quality of contribution is real and very important. However the proposed solution is simplistic and has been argued against already.
Now after a number of months with N^2 rewards (back in 2016) and more than a year with linear rewards, instead of "writing a letter" and then pumping it to trending in order to start a polemic, why not use the blockchain data and do a comparative analysis?
Extract the blockchain data from the 2 periods and look at whatever indicators you think most relevant (wealth distribution for instance under n^2 and under linear). Compare the figures: was it better with n^2 ? Or is it better with linear ? Do a regression analysis if you have to, do covariance analysis if it helps and come with mathematical proof that one or another is better for the goal that you state (which I share and I believe most people share)
I will in some very simplistic way prove the person doing the less amount of work currently have the best ROI. Those who engage ithe least in "proof-of-brain".
That will show that the current system falls short. It does not, in any way, condone nonlinear rewards. Just because we change something that's "not good enough" does not mean whatever we replace it with will automatically be "better". It can very well be ... even worse !
Posted using Partiko Android
This comment is supported by $8.06 @tipU upvote funded by @sorin.cristescu :)
@tipU voting service guide | STEEM Monsters Lottery | Quick SBD <-> STEEM Exchange | For investors.