Hey @smooth
Glad you found this post, thanks for taking the time to respond. That's a great point about the 30 minute thing, and indeed, it's a very elegant solution. Unfortunately though it hasn't been effective enough just yet from what I can see. People are still incentivised to camp out on "sure shots" and choose their moment to strike, regardless of the content, again betting, not appreciating. Do you think the current system is adequate? If not, I'd be really interested to hear your suggestions.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think the 30 minute penalty will become more and more effective as the system becomes more competitive. You will only be able to get significant curation rewards by finding non-obvious good content. Dan's posts are already almost entirely worthless from a curation-rewards perspective and as both human and bot voters get smarter, more and more of the "sure shots" will fall into that same category.
I didn't realise the penalty goes to the author. That's kinda cool.
Nice, thanks for clearing that up. What does happen to the penalized amount of the curation award @smooth ? Does it go to the parent author or is it simply not paid out ? Let's hope this system really becomes more effective, at the moment it seems its worth to take a penalty for some posts because you still get better curation rewards than with voting on posts which most likely will not be discovered by someone with a little bit more power. Btw...Does the curation reward grow after that 30minutes ? I mean would you get a bigger reward for finding a post after 10h which wasn't trending but suddenly starts trending after my vote than when i vote for it after 30mins directly ?
The penalty goes to the author. This rewards authors who are getting votes based on their reputation. The curation reward doesn't grow after 30 minutes; from that point forward, the full reward is available.