You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: @dantheman & @ned: I will pay you $1 Billion USD for all Steem Related Assets
Upvoted
Another thought might be to enable a subscription based feature as well, allowing people to pay in SBD or STEEM to subscribe to regular content of authors they like. This would allow an author to win two ways: voting and subscription.
In terms of the voting power dilemma, a though I had was eliminate the downvote completely and make every successive vote less powerful by having it's power taper on on inverse exponential curve over a period of time (such as the current 30 minute rule). This way, content cannot be downvoted simply to shield curation rewards.
The problem with a tapered voting system as you describe it is that all the minnow (bots) are usually the first to vote and have no monetary value attached to their votes. So by the time someone with money votes on the post it would have no monetary value either. You would see posts with 1,000+ votes at 20 cents in a system like you described.
Is that what happens?
It would under @lpfaust idea for voting!
How the votes taper could be adjusted, perhaps not each successive vote it could be at key values and reset at 30 minutes. I think the knock off benefit of this would be that people who curate as a whole don't just dogpile a "sure thing" and are encouraged to uncover other content. If they do dogpile, then the reward reduction will reflect the decreased amount of work (or risk) put in to uncover other gems. I think it solves two fundamental problems with enough flexibility.