You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Modest Proposal For Improving Steemit Curation
I do have a complimentary view on the topic. I see no issue with having the top group of authors repeatedly featured/supported, as long as the best authors do eventually bubble up, and the under performers eventually drop off.
Agree with you. Further, I don't see how consistently good authors could even be rewarded at all under this system. Only with a revolving door of different voters? That seems entirely implausible.
It essentially guarantees that rewards shift around to new authors and eventually to some sort of flat distribution (which rewards Sybil attacking the author namespace) almost if not entirely regardless of merit.
People need to step back and recognize that "new authors" is not always a good thing. A lot of the stuff that comes from "new authors", and a lot of what gets upvoted by some of the well known curators who vote for a lot of "new authors" is pure junk, or extended to its logical conclusion deliberate Sybil attacks.
"Discovery" and some visibility of new authors is good thing, but once that is achieved, rewards should flow where voters think they are most deserved, whether that happens to be new authors or existing authors.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Would you hold the same view if this proposal decreased the power of same-author votes in the same week by 25% or 10% rather than 50%?