You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A Different Approach to Curation: Quality Based Consensus and Quality Discovery

in #curation6 years ago

First of, yes. I'm thinking in this kind of direction myself, and I've been talking to people such as @stellabelle, @rycharde, @the-ego-is-you and @eturnerx about it recently.

Secondly, what you're proposing is common to any modern star rating system, and that's a good thing - it's proven to work. The difference is that the centralized and opaque system is the thing that assigns the weights to votes, and they are dynamic too, based on a multitude of factors. An example is the star rating system Google Play Store uses, or many other stores.

So I don't view what you're proposing as radical, and in fact it's complimentary to what we currently have, once we have SMTs that is. There's no need for me to take a hatchet to your idea (though I might suggest alterations to the exact formulas down the road). I would suggest you consider it as an additional token, instead of a modification to the current reward system. And I'm coming round to that idea.

Great that you put in the work to describe it in detail.

Sort:  

Interesting. It definitely has a better chance of actually being implemented by using another interface and perhaps another token. I'll have to do deep dive into how SMTs are implemented to see if they can support the changes to curation rewards (and maybe even posting rewards).

I should also say, especially in light of @ura-soul 's point, that I'm not particularly tied to the details of your idea at all, but more to the idea that some kind of SMT could be used to step in to reward great authors - the curators that promote them - the readers that read them - much better than the current system does. Any tweak on the current system or additional system that furthers that goal is something I'm into.

Agreed. The issue with any idea or implementation are those creative people who find sneaky ways to leverage the implementation to their benefit. But with SMTs certainly one person will figure out a great way to reward people--or at least a better one.

A better chance, as in 100% chance if you make it 😆 You should take some time to consider it. I've skimmed the whitepaper and it looks like it's got many of the Steem-like feature. Here's some indication:

SMTs will be an upgrade beyond previously created blockchain token issuance protocols due to carefully designed token sale programmability, automated liquidity providers, decentralized token markets and dynamic token distribution parameters [...]

[...]

By leveraging the concepts of inflation (new token emissions) and token allocations by post-based voting, SMTs exist in a manner where value must be distributed to users who are participating in their related content networks and applications.

[...]

Two unique properties align incentives and make SMTs “smart and social” compared to other tokens (such as bitcoin, ether and ERC-20s). The first is a pool of tokens dedicated to incentivizing content creation and curation (called the “rewards pool”). The second is a voting system that leverages the wisdom of the crowd to assess the value of content and distribute tokens to it.

There's a lot of people taking about this, you've got a few here, and I think it's something that's needed. I'd love to see the discussion go further.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.29
TRX 0.12
JST 0.032
BTC 60844.65
ETH 2995.69
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.88