There are less 200 high value curators, allowing them to do whatever they with thousands of users posting thousands of blog post is an irresponsible way to run steemit, this is what happens when people fear money, they give away all their power to those who have all the money. Your idea for delegated voting does sound interesting, that could be another experiment to try.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The way I see it, on one hand you have the scrapping of curation rewards, and on the other, complicated patches that won't actually reduce this problem. Curators really do nothing for the ecosystem anyway, except draw money out for 'inb4' type behaviour. It's not going to work and eventually everyone will see that I am right about this.
I also think that Dan is wrong about negative voting and flagging as well. Disagreeing should be entirely private, and subjective. It is by its very nature contentious and unnecessary. Rubbish will naturally not accrue as much votes, and this automatically lets it fall down. Even negative votes altogether, will not help, this will become a point of conflict, where it is more productive to, rather than downvote what you don't like, upvote what you do, and may the best votes win.
For the authors only. not for voters.
Curators are critical to determine the value of a post.