You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voting Abuse and Ineffective Curation: A proposal for blockchain-level change
Nearly every big account holder owns several accounts which can upvote each other ...
I described the concept of 'diminishing returns' which could discourage self-voting, multi account self-voting and circle voting here.
Now that would change the situation a big way. I think.
from your article: "How about if after each vote on a specific account (including ones own account) each further vote on the same account would lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account? Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before."
Great idea in diminishing the curation rewards as they continue to self upvote or circle jerk. I think this would be helpful to the platform indeed. What do we do about all this selling of votes and leasing of Steem power? This also is not good for anyone but whales either?
I personally am not convinced that the option to delegate Steem power ist helpful for the success of the platform. Too many people borrow Steem power just to upvote themselves (and then that means they need not to care about the quality of their articles anymore). Actually I see more disadvantages than advantages. Therefore I would solve the problem by simply disable this option. :)
I agree. I feel it is extremely harmful to the platform. This creates no need for good quality just quantity with lots of upvotes. That's the mentality to profiting through delegation.
Perfect! Thank you for the link my friend. I will go read this now.