Ok, what you mean is that because the big fish get higher payouts, then their payouts will get even higher because the reward pool increases in size.
But I still see it as everyone is in the same boat. So the big boys now can upvote themselves at 0min and take 100% of their upvote. That option will be removed from them. And they won't take money from every post and just give it to the guys with the most money. It will only be taken from the post if you upvote in the first 15 mins. So don't upvote in the first 15 mins.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for this new system. I think delaying the 75/25 split by introducing a time delay is pointless. Because quite simply every bot is now able to just delay the vote. To be honest, this new system means that I will vote a lot less because I tend to vote early, I vote when I see it.
But I'm sure someone will build a front end that delays the vote for you so you can upvote whenever you want and as much as you want and it'll upvote on your behalf at an appropriate time.
I know it's your opinion, I'm trying to understand it, that's all.
Did any fcuking body read this?
Ain't no-better now for big-fishes reaping self-upvotes and self-curation, but this half-ass broken effort due to the linear model will allow for 10,000 little minnows to harvest curation from mega big self-upvoters
How about we just fcuking pay that first 15mins curation reward to Flaggers?
hehe....that would be sweet to see how the dynamics starts changing.
@idikuci I agree that this isn't going to be something that we can't deal with. It will get dealt with as people change their behavior. My only real issue is the simple point that the money from the post should stay within the post. To take it from either the author or curator and give it to the other one is fine in my book... I'm not going to say what the magical formula should be. BUT, if they take the money from any post and then add it to the pool, then it is simply giving more money to the guys that already game the system. They will have this figured out before it even comes out.
For instance, if I want to hurt someone, I can auto upvote them at 0 min and take away the incentive that others would have to curate them... It just creates another loophole that can be exploited in a different way. And the fact that they didn't solve the self-voting issue by simply switching it to the curator of that post tells you that their are either being led by some of the rich guys or they are in on it. There should be no reason ever to take money from a post (except by the market method of downvoting)
But you can't just give 100% of the rewards to the curator. It means then that everyone who can will build a bot to upvote everyone else's post at the 0 mark and get 100%. Turning every post into a self upvote opportunity. The author will see a $100 post and get $0 because it all goes to the curator.
I think as a method to provide a disincentive to authors self-upvoting at 0min this is a good solution.
The other alternatives:
I really don't think this is such a bad solution. And not because I've read posts from any one saying how great this new method is going to be. If you believe it or not, the only posts about this I've read are this one, and tcpolymath's post. I found out about it actually from holger80 who was reading the code in a github update and sent me a link to the github repo which I then read. So I've thought about this for probably a week or 2. and here's what I think.
If you believe the reward pool is currently being distributed fairly, or the the distribution algorithm can be (in the future) improved so as to actually reward good work, then putting more money into the reward pool isn't a bad thing. Everyone's post will now be worth slightly more.
In theory authors get 75% of the rewards, but because of the current bias in the voting system, authors actually get around 82%, (don't ask where I go that figure, I remember someone somewhere saying that stat for the sake of argument let's assume it's correct). So if people don't change their voting behavior that additional 7% will actually be redistributed to all the other posts. Of which 75% will go to authors (5.25%) and 25% will go to curators (1.75%). So All the big wigs with a large amount of SP will get 1.75% less than they were before. for a $1000 post that's $17.5 less. For a $20 post that's: $0.35.
I'd say it's a pretty fair system... in Theory.
You can give 25% to the curators in total but weight the distribution away from the ones who voted in the first 15 minutes.
Should have said that in your post.
I think that's a decent alternative. But it still doesn't make the system they've proposed a bad one.