This may work but more things needs to be added.
This is a suggestion i wrote on steemit blog post...
What if we limit a person to 1 upvote to an particular account for 48-72 hours. This may spread many people to upvoting and curating better content/accounts.
There are other platforms that are currently doing that and it’s making the curator vote for others as they can’t keep voting the same person all the time with a three day period time limit 🤔
This will tame the bidbots, selfvoting, and circle dick suckin' action LOL
Someone looking to mine the reward pool would simply create many small accounts to vote on to get around this restriction.
You literally just explained how your own system would get broken.
All accounts would be financially incentivized to capitalize on parabolic rewards and avoid big payouts. In effect, users would be getting charged even more money to pay rent to the trending tab for increased visibility.
Proof of unique identity would solve that type of issue, right? But is it possible, or feasible to implement?
True, but are you satisfied with that state of affairs? is there anybody looking at how to break that symmetry? The "upvote" is not an exchange as would occur in real life, although there are two parties, it is not a trade - because the reverse "upvote" has the same effect.
There must be a function (somewhere) that can act as an asymmetry to the upvote function.
Any "vote decreasing" function will have a nuisance-effect on many but, as you say, will ultimately lead to more complex self-voting structures.
BTW thanks for the article and thanks for answering some valid technical questions in the same tech fashion.
Not really, they are currently already doing it regardless.
With the voting power back in the hands of people instead of delegating to bitbots with less people using them. It will be regulated by the dolphins and whales like they use to. It would be easy to track the culprits.
This strategy will kill three birds with one stone. 🤷🏼♂️
Those that are already doing would not be affected. Those that aren't would start.
Folks that upvote creators they find of high quality regularly would be penalized for actually curating.
It's a bad idea, and would not put VP back in the hands of the general community in any way I can envision.
That's the way it looks, punishing the few for the crimes of a lot of others.
100% right, would be nice to have vote diversification rewarded im some way but whatever is tried, the rapers will find a way around it :-(
Nice to see/hear you on Steem, this kind of post is mostly appreciated!!! Your name sounds 100% dutch by the way....
Posted using Partiko Android
that is a great idea, sometimes great solutions are simple.
Posted using Partiko Android
Simple is always good but people love to complaint things so that average joes gets confused like the tax system 😂
a limit for account curation would end up in creators self-regulating their posts; If I create 1 post on politics, another on TV, and a third on fitness on a normal basis (I don't ;>), then I would feel it would be a waste of time to add that content to the platform all on the same day
Not really, it will make you curate other individuals spreading the wealth. That’s the number 1 complaint of steem... people just vote the same people all the time or just bidbots while they sell off steem everyday.
Or we can just keep it the same and nothing gets solved
This is actually anticuration, as the content organically preferred would not be curatable any longer by accounts with preferences. It would increase distribution, but not based on subjective judgment of quality. Manipulations of curation rewards inevitably fail to promote curation, but always create incentive to curate for financial return, and ignore content quality.
There are other options, and not only keeping things the same. I propose some below in reply to the OP.
I don't have enough SP to make my curation matter. I've made my SP from creation. Throttling those that would curate me only prevents me from accruing more SP.
We all make sp from creating, don’t we? Wonder why your not getting more upvotes from others right now.
Maybe it’s because most people are not going to curate you anyway with how it is.
Wouldn’t you like new people start upvoting you? That won’t happen as no one is curating at all now unless there circle jerkin each other or just selling to bots.
I guess people are happy with there Penny votes from the same people. Too each his own.
I think there are three ways to make SP
So I am doing all three modes now...but...I'll be the first to admit I write in areas that most people aren't interested, and conversely, I'm not interested in most of what interests other people. I won't complain about that, because that is what is ;>
So the proposal to throttle curation to 1 vote per account /day affects more more than it would the general population.
Also, I have an aversion to mechanics that limit SP holders from using their SP as they see fit in general...I've never even complained about some of the whaleflagging I've seen here.
And lastly, Some of that investment-curation is done by people passievely. They don't want to put in the time investment of curation, but then they (some of them; got some HODLERS too) have no reason to value holding STEEM.
Makes no sense, yeah... the investors are selling tens of thousands of steem daily anyways, no users are using steem because there not getting upvotes because the “investors” sell there votes.
People need to know what’s “really” going behind the scenes but 99% don’t care.
Ok just keep it the same, nothing will change and make that $1 a post a day from the minnows. 😂
No, we don't. None of the whales do, and neither do many lesser accounts. Most of them make SP from bidbots. That's the reality today.
Can I just note that those are two different things.
people who earn rewards through the existing algorithms without social content
and
people who keep selling their steem.
I've seen bloggers receive good earnings also selling such rewards rather than powering up.
Is there some other, more fundamental reason, why neither of the above examples is compounding their rewards?
Give a reason to power up? IT's hard to find a good reason when the content discovery is broken and the incentives for becoming a whale are being diminished on the other side.