You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Thoughts about capping rewards in an incentivized way
what incentive do writers have to set their expected turnout accurately? Seems to me that under such a system, whales could state that they expect a low turnout when in reality they expect a high turnout.
To be clear, I 100% agree with your intention here, but I am exploring all options and modes of abuse that could take place in such a system, which I believe is the Steemit Way.
The incentive is a higher multiplier for their actual rewards. If they go lower with the cap (less greedy) they get more.
The whales are voters in the system, not authors, so the proposal only applies indirectly in terms of curation rewards for them.
But in case a big whale writes an article, they may choose to cap it intentionally to avoid extreme upvotes. Say if the Steemit creators want to make a post, they can put the limit to 500-1000 (enough to be "trending") but not more than that (so that rewards could go to smaller authors).
or create a separate place for steemy and whale posts, a separate column, next to trending. trending general and trending steemy...just a thought--great post
Sorry, I don't quite get what you're driving at. Would you mind explaining?