RE: Revisiting Curation Reward: Hot Coffee, Cold Coffee, and Lukewarm Coffee
charging opportunity costs for doing votes.
Yes, i understand it works both ways. Youre trying to get people to pay to vote. Now why would someone pay to vote?
One potential reason, as you pointed out, is the psychological reward. The warm peach fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting quality content.
Another potential reason (one which will, IMO, attract far more steem power) is that the money you can make by misusing your vote is greater than the money you are giving up through opportunity cost. Either because of kickbacks or because youre paying your guild payroll or whatever.
And i will point out once again that most of the whales voting for the worst content on steemit are, in fact, paying a non-trivial opportunity cost to do so. Disregarding this type of voter, and his maginified effect on the system after the honest voters are converted to investors, is just another canopener youre assuming.
Yes mostly the first point.
Second and third point seem remain with curation reward too. The magnitude can be different but we cannot tell it will be greater or smaller.
You hope.
The magnitude might be the same, but the effect will be magnified because youre taking the honest (but profit motivated) voters out of the system. That is to say, the bad fish might be the same sized fish, but theyll b e swimming around in a far smaller pond.
One possibility is stakes of sockpuppet voters are much greater than curators. But I think abusing the system will bring more stakes from the inactive to curation, especially for moderation (downvote abusers) because abusing consequently shrinks the pie so some investor on the edge are willing to give up incentives to prevent abuse.