You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A more thorough consideration of the Early Voting Penalty issue
Holy moly.... I just realized what your proposal describes was how I thought it worked, and I misread the code. The situation is a lot worse than I thought....
I don't even like this proposal but I will definitely agree that it is a significant improvement.
That would explain a lot of why I felt like we were talking past each other.
I haven't checked recently but when SBD was high immediate self-votes on posts with bot votes or other large votes later were returning something like 600% of their nominal value. It's probably a lot less now but still well above 100%.
I'm not sure how the proposed system would look come to think of it. It's easy enough to separate the pools, but how to compute what the first early voter gets?
The ideal algorithm will still want to penalize early voters on curation.
You'd have to figure out how to modify the weighted stake in a sensible way... Maybe take the leftovers of the current algorithm and divide it evenly amongst the curators?
Once we get into the actual curation algorithm I still get a little bit lost, but I think that weighting the vote by the percentage that it's early and just pretending that the rest of the vote doesn't exist would end up with acceptable results.
So a $3 vote cast at five minutes would earn curation as if it were a $1 vote.
(This is with intentionally not getting into any of the ways you and I dislike the existing curation algorithm, because that's a much larger discussion/change.)