1 person, 1 vote. It's much more democratic that way. That in combination with super linear rewards curve.
let the bot wars begin
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
1 person, 1 vote. It's much more democratic that way. That in combination with super linear rewards curve.
let the bot wars begin
ikr
Wouldn't that result in 1 person many accounts many votes?
Linear rewards are good, some votes should have more power to avoid the many account many votes. Someone with good rep should have more promotional/flag power. The cost of rigging the system needs to be higher than the payout. Its a problem for many platforms.
that's why you got stake based voting, no?
Thinking more like stakes based voting to promote/flag content with linear rewards. To hurt the profit margin with bots.
A bot can just power up/delegate and vote itself profits (I'm new to the platform that is how I understand it).
but to power up the owner has to buy steem/invest in it.
Wait for the SMT Oracles paper. Not all accounts are eligible.
okay, eager to see how you'll address this :)
Can you please explain in more detail, @Ned, what you mean in reply to the above comment of
when you say
Do you mean you will aim to filter out all bot driven accounts from the human controlled accounts? If so, how can you ensure some people may not fall through the cracks, as is the case now when it comes to massive downvotes?
Also, are there any plans to improve the visibility for smaller accounts to even the playing field more with the well established whale accounts, which may very well be the number one reason a lot of newbies leave the platform?
Check this out in the Settings page of Steemit
Appreciated your answers, @ned.
D.
okay!!
I agree with @ash. The bots will take over even more. It will only make it easier to cheat the system in reality. Hell, I have a few accounts already, what's to stop me from making 1,000 more?