You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Overhaul of Curation Rewards
So what will the voters get? Nothing? So why bother voting for others? I guess the bots will post rubbish replies on every [good] post and vote for themselves, normal users will have no chance to down-vote them all.
Voters get content catered to their voting preferences. In exchange for voting every day they get a fixed rate of return on their steem power. In most cases small voters will get something where as before they got nothing.
Rubbish replies should be actively downvoted which will earn the bots nothing. I think we will have to disable comment rewards for any comment posted 2 hours before payout just like we disable the ability to change your vote before payout.
All payouts are on the basis of n^2 which means someone who only votes for themselves will be earning "below average" rate of return compared to someone who gets the benefit of n^2 when many people vote together. To overcome the power of N^2 would require a massive amount of spam voting which would dilute voting power tremendously cause you to fall further behind the power curve.
Previously voters were discouraged to downvote. Has this changed? If one person takes it upon themselves to downvote a bunch of rubbish comments, how will they be affected for doing a good deed? What if we had an option to "flag" a comment as inappropriate and if enough flags were clicked the post was automatically downvoted by the Steem system instead of the users voting power being affected by the downvote? Although I'm sure a system like that could be abused.
Why are we discouraged to downvote? Crappy content should be voted against.
It's a result of current rules, but not intended. One of the issues need to be resolved.
I agree downvote have to be rewarded somehow. The flag system you have proposed would need a anti-abuse system also. If not bot would flag everything that isn't theirs.