Wouldn't this cause people to just wait for 4 hours before voting or just not vote at all? Because voting before the timeout would be silly for people unless they just want to promote good content without being rewarded. So why not to wait a collect the reward after? In the same manner, you can just set your bot to wait for 4 hours before voting... Or is there something I overlooked in the mechanism?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's not so much that people wont vote but it will change who votes and the quality of the votes. If I can vote without any concern for quality then for sure I'll vote more stuff up but when I'm curating then I have to vote according to some rules or patterns or based on how valuable I think the information in the post is to the rest of the network.
Unfortunately this network has a data sample which is so small and so few people that we really can't say for sure what will come of it. I think curation for example with 100,000 users with current mechanism design will be vastly more effective than with 10,000 users. I think the more users you have when you're following the evolutionary method the more accurate things get so in a way it's a sort of swarm intelligence which should get smarter as there are more voters.
However right now voting power is concentrated so whales exist which skew the voting power. I think in theory we can solve the problem with the votes but only after voting power is more distributed. I like the proxy voting idea, I like bots, I even like whales, but I think we need more diversity among the whales because right now the whales seem to vote too much alike. This whale swarm produces a pattern which some people might eventually figure out and develop bots to game as part of a strategy but then if there are many more whales that becomes harder.