You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A case for eliminating curation rewards
I want to add more. If one posts garbage, it can be downvoted and ones reputation will be harmed. There is both positive/negative feedback system on posting reward. However, there is no feedback on one's voting itself, and there is no costs from voting.
Equating no curation reward with no posting reward does not make sense IMO, and I agree that badly designed (mis-aligned) incentives is the target here.
Actually authors have nothing to lose, because authors don't need to buy STEEM to be able to post. Write good contents then earn more, or write garbage then earn less even nothing, but it is still no financial cost.
On the other hand, for voters, they have financial opportunity cost as a whole, voting badly (or others voting badly) then STEEM price go down, but voting better doesn't mean price go up, just my speculations though.
Both authors and voters don't have to buy STEEM if they signed up via Steemit. There are many free accounts using Steemvoter service (while they barely get curation reward, they are doing because they can earn anyway).
Generally, writing a post consumes tens of times of time and energy more than reading, or infinite times more than bots because they don't read. While, there is an argument for tipping-based system as well and I understand it's reasons, I would say rewarding author is essential.
Bad voting doesn't directly decrease the price nor good voting increase it. But degraded platform by bad voting can drive away users and consequently harm the price.
Except...this isn't true. If one continually makes bad votes, then they risk losing out on curation rewards because other voters may likely disagree with their choices. The result of that is not earning a curation reward and the cost is losing that voting power.
Let's not continue to make arguments based on the skewed results we see today due to disproportionate pre-mined stakes and imbalanced incentive structures. Why do some people continue to confuse cause and effect?
That's true only if one makes very bad votes 40 times everyday. If they do not make such a mistake, there are some profit.
Many for-profit bots are from non-pre-mined accounts. Curation reward is a separate issue; not heavily related to fairness but related to wrongly designed incentive system.