You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Revisiting Curation Reward: Hot Coffee, Cold Coffee, and Lukewarm Coffee
Look, I'm not sure that I think curation rewards are necessary, and I've said as much in the past. But let's think carefully about what you're suggesting: What you've proposed is that Steem pays people not to vote.
Don't you realize that this creates an opportunity cost every time someone decides to vote? It means that you're charging people to vote. Every time I find a post I like, I'll quite literally have to decide whether or not to pay to vote for it. And somehow you think this won't create perverse incentives?
I do. But your statement is not always true. For instance, some people and voting bots have much lower cost since they don't read, don't evaluate, but only following preset rules.
The main idea is psychic income can exceed the costs, and those who have greater psychic income will vote. Psychic income comes with consuming contents and it may lead more interaction between authors and readers.
In my new post, I suggested other numbers (not zero curation reward!)
https://steemit.com/steem/@clayop/diversifying-curation-reward