You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF Idea / Proposal: Witness Disapproval Feature
Yay! I ranked #1!
- yes, yes, I'm one of the two UA dudes, but the algo doesn't "know" that
- I'm not a witness! And my UA_Account rank is "only" 226
- my post didn't even generate in the hundreds of dollars on rewards, so that doesn't matter either
- but my post did get quite a lot of user engagement with other high-UA account people!
^^^ and that is the trick to learn from, and get motivated by as well!
The big "take-away" to learn from this, is that if you're not a top-ranked UA account (yet), you can still be the #1 post
This is so awesome! Congrats on having a #1 post, and thanks for explaining this. I'm really trying to understand this system thoroughly, both the UA scores in the first place and then also different possible uses of them, such as the steem-ua upvoting. I'm hoping there will be an SMT that uses UA in another application. I would love to see the scores used for deciding RCs, for example.
I think maybe it could be done with the current code (or currently planned HF21 code that brings in SMTs in the first place) because STINC already put in a mechanism for allocating additional RCs by giving just the power as if someone had more SP. You don't even have to delegate SP. Just share the RCs.
So an SMT could use UA scores to decide how much additional RC power someone gets. That way the ability to contribute on the platform would be decided by the value of the person's contributions as measured by the community's reaction to them.
The trick is to give witnesses high UAs first, and then post about ... witnesses, so that they comment. :-)
I would agree with your suggestion of less witness votes per account, so that one big stakeholder cannot appoint all relevant witnesses anymore.
Another idea would be that the weight of ones witness votes doesn't depend on ones STEEM Power only but also on ones UA ... (Or on ones 'voting CSI).