Thanks for giving some specific examples. Here are my thoughts on them.
limiting concentrated delegations
How? We'd have to control what people can and can not do with their own STEEM power. Any attempt at controlling this would fail, IMO. If we set a limit on how much a single account can delegate they would easily create hundreds off accounts to get around this limitation (some have already done similar things).
reducing the author awards for large SP votes (logarithmic)
Why would investors buy STEEM and power up if we further decrease their incentive to do so by decreasing the influence they have? Again, they would just create multiple accounts to get around this limitation anyway.
favoring instead the curation pool
Not sure what you meant there?
putting the SBD peg (both directions) tools in place.
I think this would be helpful, and I've had lengthy discussions with the community about it, but not everyone agrees it should be changed, especially not when SBDs are well above $1.
I've been on trending a handful of times naturally. It's nice, sure. But getting my moment of fame isn't why I'm here. I'm here to create content and build connections. With that goal in mind, things work out well and anything else is bonus.
Thanks for the great reply
In the same manner there is as 7 day cool down period, a particular account could not receive more than X amount of delegations in proportion to their investment. They would have to buy more steem to get X amount more in delegations. This limits how large a bidbot an can get without having even a greater stake in the platform, which will force them to analyze trash a bit closer.
If a large SP vote on a post was comparably much higher than the current total post value, more of that vote would go to the curators instead of the author -- in a formula similar to the 30 minute rule after a post is created. This would take away the ability for the bids to bots to be so profitable, yet still fully allow the normal vote flow to go nearly unchanged.
There are many options here that could be discussed.
Yes, the $1 SBD is a very arguable concept. In the long run, this would be very healthy for the platform and is how it was designed to stabilize itself.
I agree, I take great pleasure out of creating useful articles. Getting a paid a bit is a nice bonus, but I make a living elsewhere. It is the boost you get when an article does well that seems to give you confirmation that your work is worthy.
I'm not sure it will do that. To me, downvotes which we can all do right now would be much more effective if that's the end goal. Tools like this could help right now: https://steemwhales.com/clean-trending/ (Edit: looks like the URL changed. See this post for more info)
I like this idea. It would encourage large voters to go find low value posts to vote on in order to receive higher curation rewards. It could also lead to total crap getting large votes though. Interesting to consider all the unintended consequences this might have, but at first glance, I like it.
Thanks for looking at this. Even the first option has possibilities, just needs discussion and refinement.
On the large SP votes, more of the vote could also go straight SP instead SBD, again forcing more thought, less short term incentive and more investment into the platform.
Large SP voters would not likely vote on crap since, they 1) have to share the rewards with many others, and 2) the more investment into the platform, the more concern there is with quality
I'm going to read your trash control link tomorrow when I'm awake.
I have taken your suggestion as to not promoting my articles, even a little to heart and in-fact it really resonated with me as to why I am here on the platform at all and, what is the long term effect when everyone uses the bots "just a little"
The morphed into something .. not sure how it will be fully received, but what do you think