A Modest Proposal: Proof of Worth
In order to solve the problem of spammers, we should steal their computers and sell them to buy more STEEM. This proposal has two benefits. The first being that the amount of spam on blockchain will decrease as the spammers will no longer be able to spam the network. The second being that their computers will be able to buy copious amounts of STEEM on the open market rising the price of STEEM and restoring the balance to the ethical users and communities that utilize the blockchain.
The above is satire. That is not the actual proposal.
Ideas are like hot air balloons. Mostly full of hot air and fantastical
Proof of Worth
Let's call this idea: proof of worth. The intention is that a entity generates a piece of content and it is up to the community to determine its worth. If the community rejects the content either through explicit disdain or by ignoring the content, then the entity is not entitled to the reward. Thus, creators are forced to increase the quality of the content to a level where the community recognizes its worth.
How do we apply this idea and bring it into practice? Well, first, we have to eliminate any self-voting prior to recognition by the community. Thus, one's self-vote cannot exceed that of the upvotes already established by the community. This has several implications. The first being that if no one upvotes your post or comment, then you cannot upvote your post or comment. The second being that even if people upvote your comment, if your desired upvote value (let say 100%) is greater than that of the current upvote value then you will not be able to make that upvote. If you are capable of using a small portion of your upvote, then you can do that as long as the value is less than that of the total community allocated amount.
The most immediate result of this proposal would be the near elimination of people self-upvoting their comments (non-posts). This would help to delegate the rewards to where they belong. With the authors and curators who put effort into creating and elevating content. The main downside of HF19 would be removed leaving only the benefits behind.
However, one may argue that the presence of voting bots also downgrades the experience and encourages people to vote for people who are more likely to get upvoted rather than quality content. This is a valid remaining concern. We could try and use our proof of worth principle on curators, but such a solution becomes rather tricky. How are we supposed to separate the curators who find valuable content, when we have no specification of how valuable content objectively looks like? I'm not sure. We can't solve every problem overnight. But we should share and spread ideas when we can.
One last thing before you start throwing imaginary confetti everywhere. Solutions to problems can also serve as springboards to other problems. Feel free to attack my idea. Please. My feelings won't be hurt. I promise. There was not a lot of forethought about HF19 and spam. Just a bunch of enthusiast people shouting the praise of the STEEM community. Let's be cautious. Nobody wants to live in tower made of spaghetti and marshmallows. As delicious as that sounds.