Hmm, interesting proposal...
A few things:
- How would this curb self-voting shit-posters from simply upvoting themselves from other accounts?
- Will content-creators feel motivated to continue creating content with this change? Would they feel like even more money is being "taken" from them?
- Then again, offering better incentives for curation could actually raise the payouts that people are getting, because more Steemians are wanting to vote on posts...
- Will you finally get into the god-damn top 20 spot, you're constantly providing good value on your blog.
Ok, that last one wasn't relevant, but the point is, communication would have to be key for this to go over smoothly. Lots of blog posts, lots of responses to comments, even the dramatic ones, lots of answering questions and concerns. If this were to go into effect, it can't be another HF20 situation where users felt betrayed and "sprung-upon".
Thank you for writing up a well-worded discussion about this, I appreciate it.
Not with this change alone. We also need a separate downvote-pool. Both of these features together and we would have more incentives to actually curate posts and to do it on good posts, as the bad posts would be downvoted.
Exactly. If you get 100% from 1$ or 66% from 2$ - which one is better?
Haha. Thanks man! There are a few big stakeholders whose vote I need to advance to the TOP 20, but until then I'll keep on pushing.
I actually wouldn't mind having some kind of QA with other witnesses, where users like you and others could ask us questions. (for example on the minnowsupport radio.) (@aggroed)
Or I would even be open for a debate.
Comments like yours is what keeps me going!
I listened to my first episode of the minnowsupport radio yesterday, and I can see that being an immensely valuable asset to this platform. No disrespect to aggroed, but I think that idea needs to be developed to it's full potential. I feel like having that sort of transparency be more accessible, and with wider distribution, would be monumentally beneficial.