You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Thoughts about capping rewards in an incentivized way
The purpose is not to upset the whale-centric system (it has serious benefits in terms of eliminating sybil votes), but more to increase retention at the lower levels.
Look at it this way: A post that doesn't get 13.000$ but gets only 10.000$, is 3000$ more for smaller posts. You can take that 3k and give 100 authors 30$ that will motivate them to keep going. If the casino effect (the roulette is at 1/37 odds) tends too much to lottery-odds (highly improbable to win, ever), then one might abandon it altogether.
But then you have to deal with how to cap rewards and get that 3k... so instead of doing it forcefully, you allow the user to set the cap and get rewarded for it with an increased multiplier (the lower he goes).
That's certainly a nice goal, but it it aims to retain the minnow who wants to click instead of write. I certainly understand: I tried to snap up some curation rewards when I started out here! But I also got the idea that I should be writing instead of just clicking away.
Are you trying to address a perceived unfairness induced by the impression (not "fact," impression) that the whales are making huge bank simply by clicking?
It's more like:
Okay, thanks for clarifying.