i think n^2 was too much but linear is bad because it just encourages content indifferent voting (vote selling or self voting)
Something like n^1.3 with higher curation rewards would probably enocurage people to vote for what's good again as it'll likely out compete vote selling/self voting. But with things as they are, if you don't do the latter you just lose stake to those who do.
I've tried talking to them since about march but not much traction. This hf, all obvious bugs and issues aside...i dunno. Does it really help with scaling and onboarding?
I agree, I am not sure it really does. For the moment most of my hope lies in the launch of SMT, because the way i see it, this is the only way to change the the deposit to withdraw ratio in a positive manner. On the other hand seeing how "smooth" the hard fork went i am not at all worried about the launch of SMT hehe
about 2 years ago
Haha yep that was probably a necessary one. In my opinion I would be more happy if they removed the beta mark than made a hard fork.
i think n^2 was too much but linear is bad because it just encourages content indifferent voting (vote selling or self voting)
Something like n^1.3 with higher curation rewards would probably enocurage people to vote for what's good again as it'll likely out compete vote selling/self voting. But with things as they are, if you don't do the latter you just lose stake to those who do.
I've tried talking to them since about march but not much traction. This hf, all obvious bugs and issues aside...i dunno. Does it really help with scaling and onboarding?
I agree, I am not sure it really does. For the moment most of my hope lies in the launch of SMT, because the way i see it, this is the only way to change the the deposit to withdraw ratio in a positive manner. On the other hand seeing how "smooth" the hard fork went i am not at all worried about the launch of SMT hehe
I think there should be a rule that you can only be in beta for so long. Totally agree
Lol! Time travel dude