I completely agree that linearity is a problem, but a lot of people are clearly concerned that n^2 is too extreme. What do you think of n^1.5?
I think it's also important to bring back a serious vesting schedule so that more whales actually think about long term value when they're deciding how to use their stake. 2 years seems reasonable to me.
Now we are talking.
Sure n^x is an option.
I am mainly for non-linear rewards.
n^2 was a brilliant idea and is worth trying out again, though.
Yeah, I don't object to n^2, but the main issue is that we need an exponent greater than 1 to provide incentive for consensus. I'm also interested in curation rewards for downvotes to fight spam and curation penalties for voting against strong consensus. Interface sites should have highlighted 'controversial' sections to embrace the vote wars and catalyze consensus formation on community values/standards.
I didn't mention it in this post, but n^2 would affect flags too - flags being much more potent on overvalued material.
Rewarding consensus would also affect curation rewards indirectly.
Yeah, I get that. I still think the change to the short vesting schedule was also a mistake and that the curation system could use some additional work beyond reverting to an exponential curve.
If the only change made was going to n^2 I think we'd see a lot of whales just harvesting and no one would have the incentives to stop them. A lot of users get very discouraged by that sort of thing already.
Right now it just isn't as obvious.
If you were to try get the most impact out of your votes, flagging the most exposed material will have the most effect.
Like I wrote:
All the linearity does is cloak how much money the whales can sifon out.