You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Benefits of Pure Linear Reward Distribution

in #curation9 years ago

However, linear curator rewards (along with linear author rewards) would be very strange and I'd argue would be a terrible idea. Linear curator rewards mean that every vote is rewarded exactly the same, no matter who it votes for or when it votes. Strategically, this would be exactly equivalent to having no curation rewards, except that we'd be paying people for the pleasure of casting random votes. A totally-random voting strategy would pay exactly as much as one which votes for the best posts.

As I replied to another comment, due to downvoting, the best for-profit voting strategy would be voting for contents with potential lowest downvoting rate, rather than random posts or the posts with highest pending payout. So there should be work done for that. Bots will still have advantages, but not as huge as they have now.

Casual users and average for-profit voters will open the website or an app, vote for their friends or trending posts, earn their returns. IMHO it's natural, the least cognitive load, so it's the key to mass adoption.

On the topic of the reverse auction, I'm a big proponent of the reverse auction because it creates a situation where we don't waste curation funds paying rewards for obvious votes. I hold that we don't need to pay curation rewards for votes for someone like @krnl or @ats-david, because everybody knows (including any properly-trained machine) that those posts are going to trend. No incentive for discovery needed.

In a natural world, people vote for them because people like them or their contents. But currently many people vote for them because hope to earn more rewards. So, value distribution is distorted. False positives. The root reason is the non-linear curves. Try to fix it by adding another penalty is not the best solution IMHO. Linear distribution solves this issue perfectly. Just my opinion though.