Thanks for your view.

I used to think somehow the same "bright" way you are seeing things here, in the past, and then, year after year on the blockchain, I got faced with the reality that I would never see. This is a dream come true, but its not all about dreams coming perfect (or sometimes nearly far from it).

Without proper financial support, it's very hard to make things VERY right the first time, especially with a technology where the first purpose is to "experiment" and has the "embedded" idea of being constantly on "beta" stage.

My point is, I do agree that is important to state when things are not proper and what's not working or we think it does not work. Although, I feel the best juice of these experiments that can be taken into "consideration" is the things that do work! And this is the reason why sometimes I have this wish of "seeing more" about it or "accelerate" the progress of the experiment (if that does not change the path).

The current method of "reputation" is not even one to me. So, I am not considering it anymore for that purpose. On the ua side, what I like is the fact that we are "trying" something new. Does not mean straight away it will work, and I am also not saying it will work or not. Just that it is something different being attempted with the aim to address a reputation problem, and that for itself has some value on this platform (because is of interest of everyone).

Around this subject there is also other complexities around the equation... which are for example, questions like... "What should be reputation of a STEEM user?" or "What a user consider being highly reputable?". All very important to clarify otherwise nothing can't be really developed on top of the rationalism.

It's also important to think and realise that these things will always have to fight exploiting and gaming scenarios. But, it's also important to quantify how much of these we see... and in my view, that can also be seen as an improvement worth considering.

Finally, the reason I think the current weighted system does not work in my view is due the fact that when someone has high/low reputation, all is being considered is the accumulated voting for that user... and not the temporal relationship of that weighted value. Being considered "high reputation" forever for me is not a valuable credible input.

What I think it would work (my own view), is a system that has a depreciation factor along side with a dependency of what is "being considered" an high value reputation event. With the combination of these two, gaming and buying votes will also happen, but because the behaviour of people change and adapt, so the scoring of that representation would change. Making it very hard for static "exploitation". Yes, AI might be able to find a way, but before we reach that arena, I think the added variability, introduced with time would really make things very different.

What you think?