You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Whales - Can the community buy out a portion of your influence?

in #steem8 years ago

@smooth actually brought up this exact idea in @snowflake's post. It is a good idea and I'm not opposed.

Two arguments against it are:

  1. At least from an impression perspective, it seems to be a misaligned incentive. Do we really want the message to users to be that we are encouraging users to not vote?
  2. Any whale that did still use their voting power (with the absence of most of the other whales voting) would have a huge dominated say in the allocation of rewards, since their vote would be such a large portion of the voting stake.
Sort:  

At least from an impression perspective, it seems to be a misaligned incentive. Do we really want the message to users to be that we are encouraging users to not vote?

Yeah, that's a fair point. Even if the rewards for curation would easily be higher than the rewards for sitting, it would easily feel like an incentive not to vote.

Any whale that did still use their voting power (with the absence of most of the other whales voting) would have a huge dominated say in the allocation of rewards, since their vote would be such a large portion of the voting stake.

That's true.

Yeah, that's a fair point. Even if the rewards for curation would easily be higher than the rewards for sitting, it would easily feel like an incentive not to vote.

If the rewards for curation are higher everyone would curate.

Good points. The problem I see with this proposal too is that minnows's influence wouldn't be stable. If their influence goes up and down all the time they would be confused and might not buy as much steem power as they would otherwise.

That will be true regardless though. The amount that an individuals vote is worth is always dependent on the amount and way the rest of the active voting stake is being used.