RE: A new approach to Content Reward Allocation
Well, the fact that this post has almost $1k in upvotes in 7 minutes without a comment is rather telling that something needs to be done. I would like some clarification - it may be obvious but I missed it in the post.
How is M decided? Why don't N people show the unblinded vote? It seems we should see the results of all votes or am I reading something wrong?
How does this prevent all the bots from automatically 5 staring the typical "high value" posts? Right now it seems that bots are doing a lot of voting for you, ned, and a few others posts. If the 5 star bots are still the majority vote, they still win because they (currently) have the most weight and (also currently) most number of votes.
Overall long term I see this as a good plan once there is much more content - however it doesn't seem to fix the problem as it stands right now. The bots continue, and as long as they are all close (5 star for the "big guys") then they still win.
EDIT: So M is the subset of N that choose to reveal their vote. I guess I was confused because there is no reason not to reveal that it didn't make sense to have a different number there. I see it though. My other question still stands.
Why, and do you think the proposed method would produce a significantly different result? I don't. The post happens to be thoughtful, well written, and relevant. There is no reason for it to not get a high score and payout.
The problem only really comes up when a "good" author makes a "bad" post, and even then it is unproven whether people wouldn't still downvote it and kill the rewards (and the voting power of those who stupidly upvoted it)
I guess that did come across as "this post shouldn't be upvoted" which isn't what I meant at all. I just had some, what appeared to me, pretty obvious questions that hadn't been asked by anyone yet.
I also stated that I did not think the proposed method would fix the issue. The "please don't upvote this" post comes to mind with exactly what you describe. Good author, bad post.