You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Distributing Wealth Should Be Equally Profitable

in #steem7 years ago

As someone who spend a lot of time on my posts, I would feel discouraged if the author reward is further reduced. Good content authors are already frustrated by the swamp of spam posts on this site, and the psychological effect of reduced reward on these authors will be devastating. On the other hand, spam producer would not care one bit as it takes them no time at all to create a post. I feel that anything that hurt good content producer is not good. We should find some way to penalise single large votes, which is really the underlying problem of whales self voting and voting bots. For example we may implement a maximum quota for a single vote, then holders of large SP would not be able to benefit from self voting, and the amount that you could earn from Bidbots would be greatly reduced.

Sort:  

there's no effective way to stop self voting, even arbitrary limits. it makes it more difficult, but it can be done with no loss in efficiency. Increasing curation rewards to 50% and decreasing author rewards to 50% doesn't directly translate to instant loss for authors, how about if people start to vote others more and what if its such a favourable setup that the overall price of steem goes up in the process?

That is a big if though, or at least introduce uncertainty that might push some quality authors away until the situation does turn better as you described, So it will be kind of like a curve ball with it getting worse first for the authors before it gets better. Well I am going to stick around anyways no matter what so I welcome any change that would ultimately help Steem to succeed.