RE: Pre-Release: HF19 Linear Rewards!
Why would I want to continuously ration my VP? As it is most newcomers have no idea about voting power, this is just going to be one more barrier to them engaging at will. Not to mention, by voting 25% I diminish my influence, and with inactive curators not doing they same, active curators are crowded out of the reward pool. This means the people who pile on the votes on the Trending pages will be heavily incentivized, and those who dig for good posts will be heavily punished.
And like I have mentioned before, I can find 10 good blog posts within the next 10 minutes now. There are over 5,000 posts per day now, it really isn't so difficult. Not to mention, there are comments on Steemit as well. Like I also mentioned in my last reply, I exhaust 40 votes within an hour or so nowadays. I don't even vote on comments because I'm all out of VP before I can. If I were curating full time, I'd probably need at least 200 votes per day, if not more. This is of course very different to when Hardfork 19 was announced over a month ago. At the time, 10 votes per day would have been adequate for the casual curator.
I have written about this before, and my solution was having a dynamic target by activity. So the 10 votes per day proposed back then should be 50 votes per day now given the 5x increase in activity.
Users won't have to ration their voting power. They can if they wish, but their network influence will be the same regardless of how many times they vote, so long as it's equal to or greater than 10/day.
Any active user would most certainly have to ration. The issue is an active user's influence will now be the same as an inactive user's influence as long as they vote 10 per day. So it doesn't matter if I spend 10 minutes voting on 10 posts/comments or I spend 3 hours voting on a 100. Overall, active users will be crowded out of the reward pool and disincentivized to curate actively.
And this is just now. What happens when there's 100,000 posts/comments per day? That's nothing - it could happen overnight if Steemit were to go viral. Are we really going to force users to target 10 votes out of 100,000? That's absurd.
I don't think it makes a difference how many users/posts we have each day. As we get more and more users, we also get that many more people voting.
I think we fundamentally disagree there. I can only speak for my experience curating. The number of votes I make is absolutely tied to activity. Especially now, there are probably 100 good posts by new comers every single day. And yes, a vast majority of these go unnoticed.
LOVE YOUR RESPONSES. NOW I SEE THE DANGER OF THIS HF. WHAT CAN BE DONE BEFORE ITS IMPLEMENTED?
MOST USERS, NOOBS LIKE ME, DONT CHANGE VOTING POWER PERCENTAGE AND WHEN WE KNOW 10 VOTES IS ALL THERE IS FOR THE DAY... THAT IS POWERFUL... WE GET REAL PICKY.
CONSEQUENCE: AUTHORS GO PUNISHED.