So, instead, there will be 1000 bots voting sometime between 15 minutes to 0 minutes after a post, over time, as bots compete for what little they can get. The solution doesn't fix the problem. It just makes the experience worse for humans.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Either that or no rewards left for people. This way you have a chance. But bots are not as good as you. You will always have an edge for picking good content.
How do you draw the conclusion that putting constraints on the time when a vote is cast does anything to help solve that problem? It doesn't. The bots just wait until whatever amount of time elapses before voting. There will still be the same number of bots voting, no matter what you do, as it costs little to run them. What a delay does is actually give the program time to analyze the posts before casting a vote. It actually helps the bots win because sophisticated logic to become the best bot will involve analyzing patterns and content. Humans excel at pattern recognition and it may take a human seconds to recognize "good" content vs. a bot. Thus a human should be able to make that decision promptly.
Time constraints just makes it a little bit more likely, and I mean only slightly more likely, that you'll decide to vote before a bot, because as a human, you are impatient. And when you vote, you'll have to vote before the bots to earn anything at all, minimizing your curation reward. But if you have only a little steem power, it is irrelevant. The first bot with a lot of steem power will earn the most.
For more and more reasons, there is no benefit to the "cooldown" at all.
Not sure if you know that also the earlier you vote, the ore of your reward goes to the author. If you vote in the say the first minute %100% of your reward goes to the author. At a 15 mins you split the reward 50/50 with the author. After 30 mins you receive the full reward. So and the bot maker have to determine how much of your reward you are willing to sacrifice for being first to vote.