Thank you for your input @blocktrades. Could you please explain how it makes the original whitepaper's argument invalid?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thank you for your input @blocktrades. Could you please explain how it makes the original whitepaper's argument invalid?
The existing non-linearity already gives an incentive to curators to vote on posts that other people will also likely vote on rather than simply self-voting.
The reason this doesn't work well in practice is at least in part to the fact that most of the rewards go to the author rather than the curators under the current rules.
The other problem is few people understand the real rules which are essentially undocumented and end up fighting shadows.
I'm open to any solutions that resolve the current situation. I'm interested to hear more on this type of solution involving the current % allocated to curators.
Pay more for curators than authors and people will vote for others instead.
Pointing to the whitepaper and appealing to Steemit, I feel like I'm listening to a BCASHer.
I hold the same arguments as the whitepaper and I've stated in my words why so. I'm not appealing to Steemit. I've incorporated the facts and statements mention in this post because I felt they were valuable to the subject.
Alright, to answer your above question to blocktrade, it doesn't make the whitpaper invalid. It just make your title lose meaning. It's not actually linear and never has been.
Fair point but it doesn't invalidate my overall argument.
Isn't your overall argument that you're against linear reward?
Linear in reward to how rshares allocated to author rewards are calculated.
Name calling isn't helpful