I'm going to answer here the reply you made to my comment.
You said 5 votes would disincentivize engagement. I'm not sure about this. Actually there is close to 40 votes a day to be cast and we make vote on stuff that we don't care much because we need to casts so many votes and we cast votes on stuff, the title didn't even entice us to read.
Knowing we only 5 votes to make, will lead us to read only the very best article and not lose our time with other less interesting articles. We will try hard to find that 1-2 gems that haven't been discovered yet and be greatly rewarded for it afterward.
If someone want to cast 10 votes then this person only needs to vote with 50% of their power 20 votes, 25% of their power etc...
"and we make vote on stuff that we don't care much" " not lose our time with other less interesting articles"
Woah backup, why is that not valued? Users spending hours on the site sifting through content is a good thing not a bad one. Why does middle of the road content not get any love? Content is very subjective to begin with. This system will lead to less good content getting discovered because people will be too stingy with their upvotes saving them for themselves and their close friends. Mediocre content is what social networks are built on, out of all that shit rises some gems. Those gems will not be found under the new system because many will not want to dilute their voting power since they used that on themselves and a friend. They just won't vote.
I don't want to have to think and do math with my upvotes and I'm willing to wager a majority of social network users would agree with me. This is truly an engineer's solution to the problem. Add more settings and more clicks keeping building out the interface. Sure it will create far more granular control but it's too complex. Upvoting should be a one-click process. If you like something you upvote it, end of story.
I understand that it's an effort to combat a real problem and you guys are working hard. I don't want you to think I don't appreciate that but it is my opinion that this is the wrong way to go about it. I think these solutions are becoming too advanced and adding too many extra steps for users. Just having the message out there that something happens if you vote more than 5 times will be enough to scare users from voting more than 5 times.
Keep in mind that for this project to really take off and change the world it needs to be adopted by less than savvy people. The biggest problem with Steemit growing right now is that it's so damn hard to use and understand. Things need to be simplified and better explained in an onboarding process.
"If someone want to cast 10 votes then this person only needs to vote with 50% of their power 20 votes, 25% of their power etc..."
Normal users don't think like this. Developers / engineers and the rare highly invested power users (whales) think like this. These types of solutions drive users away.
Maybe I've got the mission of Steemit all wrong. Is this supposed to be a platform that will be adopted by masses of people and upend social media as we know it or is this a place for IT savvy power bloggers to make money?
If the goal is to create a site for elite content creators first and regular people second than this solution is heading down the right path. If Steemit is trying grow and attract more minnows and grow them into dolphins the user experience needs a much larger priority in the thought process being used for these solutions.
I think there is a better solution to found. Something that doesn't add more clicks and settings for the user. Something where the user can intuitively upvote what they like and not think more about it. Bot masters will always exist and will always try and game the system. Let's not hobble the user experience fighting them.
First I'm not a Steem dev or part of Steemit, I'm just a simple Steem user.
The new rules will be advantageous to smaller investors, not the other way around. That is what is stated and wish, so if it was realized not to be the case then we have all the reasons to think this will be changed. Right now big investors can delegate their curation to other people. They have the time, know-how and the incentives to set in place those practices as this pay them a lot of money which isn't the case for small investors.
Steem can be seen as a really fun job. We doesn't expect anyone to know anything on day 1. Sure Steem is a complex thing. What is the percentage of people who understand the money creation system currently in use in the world?
We will need to teach people how to use Steem, this is a fact. Those who aren't interested at first won't be first to benefit from it. We shouldn't force teach them or force them to use Steem.
Steem is a good monetary system and there is already a lot of people recognizing this and benefiting from it.
We have a major divide in how we view Steem/Steemit that I think is the crux of our disagreement. You are looking at it as an investor and I am looking at it as a user.
I think you would do better as an investor to not think about it like you are. You won't reap much as an investor if the platform fails to grow and gain some sort of mass adoption.
The value potential of Steem is not in the crypto-currency it's in the social network. Building a better social network is better for investors. Why are bots bad? Because they harm the human experience and so further harming that experience shouldn't be the answer since that only compounds the problem.
"Steem is a good monetary system"
There are plenty of better monetary systems available, being a good monetary system is not Steem's market differentiation.
Thank you for taking the time to state your concerns, I don't pretend to hold the truth.
I'm not sure there are plenty of better monetary systems. I won't debate this here now.
Also the new rule is going to affect bot more than human. Another thing I would love to point out now that I've reflect on the matter a bit more, those who will read the most and apply themselves to do more curation will still be advantage over others, that won't change.