Announcement: @reward.app

in #curation5 months ago

image.png

This idea was originally brought up over a year ago and I didn't think about circumventing it this way at the time, afterwards the EIP came and everything changed (mostly for the better), but I believe this will be an interesting experiment now. With these new options existing, I think it will outweigh some potential negatives it may have and tackle some other issues we are facing with curation and maximization of ROI. Needless to say, once you find out what it entails in the next paragraph, this experiment is something that would exist sooner or later anyway, as the blockchain allows it.

The idea behind @reward.app is to allow authors to direct more curation rewards to voting curators from their posts through our service.

We do this by;
  • authors setting a percentage of the author rewards they want to go to curators on top of the usual 50%
  • setting us as beneficiary
  • we distribute them to the curators at payout

Before I dig deeper into my thought process of this idea I just want to mention one thing about Hive and how amazing it can be. Even though I put a lot of thought into and simulated how this service could evolve in my mind, it only took a small amount of time to contact an active developer on hive, explain the idea, have him code it (even though he was busy with other projects at the same time) and have it ready. No multifactor keys even required, as Hivers rely on their reputation and future income and success based on it, which in my eyes is something beautiful that can not be found on many other chains, or anywhere else on the internet.

Okay, so you might be thinking "curators are already getting more rewards since the EIP, why would we want to give them even more?"

As a an active curator there are a lot of things holding us back not just to get a better trending page, but also for promotion of posts. Not many want to burn their rewards to @null, send to the DHF and even less will decline rewards on their posts for obvious reasons. Even if they'd want to burn rewards in return for more attention and promotion of their posts, the outcome is often underwhelming because curators are disincentivized to stack votes and reward earlier voters. This is the reason many of the big accounts are voting early on posts with no other votes before them and with small percentages; to maximize returns. Even if they see posts that could deserve more rewards, they're going to avoid them because if they are the last to cast their votes on the post (and with each vote the chance of them being the last increases) they're going to lose out on rewards. This makes it really hard for more deserving posts to get trending spotlight and at the same time it encourages short or lower-effort posts, as they know their rewards are indirectly capped by how much they could earn due to the voting behavior of the big accounts.

How could @reward.app change this?

As I mentioned this is going to be an experiment but I think an exciting one. I also believe that before the EIP this experiment would've not been as successful due to the lack of downvotes, anyway here's some thoughts on how it could evolve:

  • Authors giving curators a higher cut from their rewards could receive more and larger votes, which in turn would get them the same amount of post rewards they would've gotten either way.

  • Knowing they'll get bigger votes and more trending attention they'd also be aware of the downvotes that exist now so both curators and authors would have to have that in mind that they're more susceptible to downvotes if the content isn't great - which will cost them rewards.

  • Many authors may be more interested in the attention than the rewards, they want to receive more eyes, followers, etc, to kickstart their Hive experience and this could be a way for them to get it knowing that burning rewards would not.

  • Curators would not be against stacking votes as much as they are now knowing they'll get a higher cut of the rewards, at the same time the way the extra curation rewards are split can be altered with our service, so it's not always the "front-runners" or "maximizers" earning the biggest cut. There are many parameters and options that could be made available for authors to choose which one suits best for them and their curators. A couple of such paramteres could be a linear curation cut where it won't matter who voted first or one that gives an edge to those who voted last to balance out the usual 50% curation that's at the blockchain level.

In general, most curators out there who are curating content for the content and not attempting to maximize their rewards, are losing out to those who are doing the opposite. This could bring some additional balance to the ROI and how the inflation is distributed. While there are some potential drawbacks of this, it is also a good way to encourage a healthier usage of downvoting and help push great content into the spotlight it deserves. This is an experiment and it would be great to get a discussion going around decentralized ways to affect distribution and give options to users of all kinds.

We have a lot of upcoming ideas on how we could gamify this service more, one of them being a hidden curation cut, where the author can set the extra percentage that goes to curators through our website and curators would not know what it is if any. Authors could also let curators know in the post which would encourage more manual curation and less bot and front-run voting. As you can see this will open a lot of different possibilities.

How @reward.app works

If you want to give @reward.app a try, all you have to do right now is send @reward.app a memo with the number 0 to 100 which defines the percentage of the author rewards you want to go to curators.

When you write the post you just have to set @reward.app as 100% beneficiary and you'll automatically receive the rewards in liquid form at payout minus a 1% fee.

If you don't send @reward.app a memo it will use a default value of giving 4% extra rewards to the curators and you'll receive 95% of the author rewards.



There will be a more technical post coming up soon written by the developer: @cardboard. Follow @reward.app to not miss out on that and future updates!

Let the experiment begin!

We welcome any questions or discussions you may have about it.

I'll be testing it in this post for the first time by setting 50% of the author rewards to go to voters.


Sort:  

So the key is to set @reward.app as 100% beneficiary ? or we can set that low as well ? Want to try out for my travel blogs.

The best way is to setup it at 100% so all your reward will be paid in liquid form :) minus the 4% for additional curation rewards (this one can be changed) and minus 1% fee.

hey @cardboard , delegate button in @tipu dashboard is not working . it says "This site can’t be reached"

Yep, soon keychain will be implemented on tipu.online
This should help.

ok cool , will @tipu 'reinvest in tokens' become available again ?

Not in near future as I'm out of tokens :) Will rebuy them if price drops.

I am really looking forward to this experiment and I like the idea of hiding the specifics.

What might also be cool is to be able to do some kind of lottery, where for example a percentage of my rewards could be put aside and then be applied on a random post sometime in the future, but no one knows which post.

Now we're talking. 😏

I think some gamification for post rewards would be cool.

Oh, I like that!

@acidyo and @cardboard :

I’ve seen at least one person refer to it as @rewards.app rather than @reward.app so in case people start mistakenly setting @rewards.app as their beneficiary, I claimed the account. I don’t use Discord, but if you post a response to this comment with an email address, I’ll send you the keys for @rewards.app so you could re-direct payouts to the correct recipients.

Good thinking, thank you! That's gonna save a lot of people some funds probably and we should've thought of that. Please send the keys to [email protected]

Done. Check your email.

Thank you!

Edit the email out now so fewer bots scrape it and send you spam :)

Thanks you good sir!

!tip .20 worthy gesture!

🎁 Hi @preparedwombat! You have received 0.2 HIVE tip from @dswigle!

Check out @dswigle blog here and follow if you like the content :)

Sending tips with @tipU - how to guide.

This is a fascinating concept.

Knowing they'll get bigger votes and more trending attention they'd also be aware of the downvotes that exist now so both curators and authors would have to have that in mind that they're more susceptible to downvotes if the content isn't great - which will cost them rewards.

My favourite paragraph right here.

Alright... It came a time when id criticize @acidyo. lol.

Amicable. But i dont think it will work. Heres why.

If you want to give @reward.app a try, all you have to do right now is send @reward.app a memo with the number 0 to 100 which defines the percentage of the author rewards you want to go to curators.
When you write the post you just have to set @reward.app as 100% beneficiary and you'll automatically receive the rewards in liquid form at payout minus a 1% fee.

This is all bla bla bla bla bla.

Not because i think its stupid or i think its a bad idea. No. Its because the way its implemented into the user experience it requires people to understand a lot more then they might coming in from the youtube/google state of things. A number of unnecessary steps as well.
And a lot of folks are like that..
What any and all developers, dapps, projects, should think about, you included, is how to seamlessly include your ideas into frontends. I dont use hiveblog at all so in my case its @peakd.
Frontends allow for users to easily interact with HIVE and they should be first of all in mind when introducing any and all major additions.
OCD is a community, isnt it, the biggest one?

You can create these kinds of additions in collaboration with frontends otherwise its true, Mewtwo is better then Mew. ;)
Reach out to those folks and see how that can be introduced into the frontend. "Send memo" doesnt really do much for anyone. Maybe they dont like the idea, maybe its too much work to introduce into a community or the whole site, but it just as well might not be. Maybe a compromise can happen.
@asgarth.

I mean I agree, it can be made easier with the help of front-ends, especially peakd. But setting beneficiaries doesn't seem that difficult for users that wanna use this with the default settings and if they wanna change it I don't think that sending the account a transfer with a number from 0-100 is that much more difficult.

It'll be an uphill battle at first if it gets any traction at all or is considered a valuable asset to the ecosystem after we see how it is used, but there's ways it can be incentivized and once curation rewards start being sent out to users who may not even realize they voted on such a post it could get the fire burning.

OCD is a community, isnt it, the biggest one?

What's the relevancy here? :p
just FYI we don't want OCD to be the biggest anymore and have stopped actively curating posts there for a couple months now. A post is coming out soon about our community incubation program where we're incentivizing new and unique communities to grow and existing ones as well that aren't general "all goes" communities. OCD will remain to direct them to those communities and for posts that don't belong in any existing ones. More about that very soon.

If there is anyone that is willing to listen its the Peakd team. Ive been bombarding them with suggestions the last few months and not once did i see any pushback from them, theyve been really easy to talk to. (how their proposal is not funded is a crime against "Hiveanity" 🙃
I actually got one small addition into Peakd. The notification colors are my idea. :) Me, The obnoxious one.

On a serious note... i place the front end developers on the same level as the core devs. I value them just the same. Its them that mold user experience and i think your idea falls right in that category.

OCD isnt the biggest because people expect something from you themselves, anyomore for most part. The price is low, an upvote is hardly life changing. Folks just like you. They think youre doing a good thing and have the best intentions for Hive. I mean they might miss the votes but they know youre well meaning. Thats why OCD will always remain relevant.

@acidyo This are the some point noticed in the experiment so I thought I should let you also know 🙂.

their might be a chance of voting get abused as if we set higher percentage the curator can abuse it for more rewards.

How would be small Curator will be benifited. Boz every one will be setting to big voters only.

And lastly if the author is setting it more % , he will be losing his rewards to Curator and fees.
🙂

It's just my opinion and thinking. But the idea is very good and interesting. Will definitely try out how it works.👌 😉

If authors try to set a high cut for curators to get more post rewards in return but the content is not good it will get downvotes, which means it'll be easier to find posts to use your downvotes on as many are having a hard time today to use theirs as a majority of big curation accounts split them up as much as possible for max ROI.

If the content is good and the curators get say 50% extra rewards they won't care about not voting on a post cause it's already "too high voted" with the addition of that 50% being linear, i.e. early voters not getting an advantage they could earn more curation rewards than voting on posts without the extra 50%.

So the idea is that authors would get the same or more post rewards even if 75% goes to curators as long as the content is good. At the same time it would encourage long form content again knowing that curators won't hesitate to stack votes - if the content is great - as lately the small % votes and big accounts not voting after other big accounts has discouraged content that requires more effort.

Most of what I wrote is in the post but hope my rewrite made it a bit more clear.

It's also called an experiment for a reason cause there's still a lot of possibilities we can't foresee of how it's going to be used or abused. Time will tell but we'll try to adapt with the best outcome for the platform in mind.

@acidyo

It's also called an experiment for a reason

Yes I agree on your thoughts and points. We need to try different things. We never know which will give us success.

the idea is that authors would get the same or more post rewards even if 75% goes to curators as long as the content is good.

Wow this is something interesting part if it is like that obviously people will we definitely using this service.

Let's hope for the best 🙂 we all working for the betterment of the community and hive ❤️.

You always come up with great ideas.

Keep up the good work

Thanks Nathan, keep up the hustle. #posh token coming soon! :)

Super Excited for $POSH

Ah so you're the one who is running this. Was wondering what was going on with the wallet payment I received recently from reward app!

I will try it out from time to time, think it would be good to use for a new music release or introducing a new service/product to set higher curation rewards but we don't know if we don't try hey.

Experiment away! :D

and yeah @cardboard was going crazy with the testing. ^^

I thought it was you Nicky coz I got something from your post
image.png

Ha! Foiled... I think! No, I have no idea how that happened, count yourself lucky 😃

Haha! I thought it was you @nickyhavey, not @cardboard! Testing! Testing!

Lol, definitely not me - kudos to @cardboard! Testing testing 1, 2, 3!

I think Likwid has something similar where you set is as beneficiary and it will give you reward, bar a 1% fee.

Does the reward.app now help disperse the rewards in some preset way or will it be up to the author to then pick which curators she/he wants to send to?

They won't be able to exclude curators but that's an interesting idea for the near future. :p

What reward.app does right now is take the 50% of author rewards from my post when it pays out, check all voters that voted it but instead of abiding by the curve the blockchain uses where early voters get a bigger share, it evens it out so everyone gets a linear share depending of their stake of the 50%. Half of the rewards that go to curators can of course not be controlled as the blockchain handles that so we can just adjust and give different parameters to the extra rewards authors want to give to curators.

Where can I find information about this curve where early voters get more rewards? Curious how that works, googling and getting nowhere

Good question, I haven't seen any straight forward numbers in years, not sure if that curve ever changed after the rest of allocation went from linear to what it is now and before that it was squared. If you go to hivestats.io/@username then to pending and curation rewards you can see the "efficiency %" which shows your upcoming curation rewards and you can trial by error your way into better CR.

Good tip, thanks!!

Maybe it's in the code itself, I did a very brief search for the word "curation" in the docs and didn't see anything useful, but could look harder on that end.

Would be good to know!

I'm willing to try this one. I'm just not familiar on how to:

send @reward.app a memo with the number 0 to 100 which defines the percentage of the author rewards you want to go to curators.

Shall I do this for every post or is there a default thing I can do? Is this the way to do it?
image.png

That's the way to set beneficiaries yes, and when sending @reward.app a memo with 0.001 hive (it sends it back) you just type a number 0-100 which is a % of the author rewards you want to go to curators extra and this will remain that number until you change it with another memo. If you don't send a memo before posting with beneficiary going to it it will use the default 4% going to curators.

Thanks for the info @acidyo

So basically, if I'm more concerned with increased visibility for my posts than with earning revenue myself, I can give my 50% of post rewards to curators to encourage more upvotes pushing me to trending. That's it, right?

Yeah or any percentage you want. We've been noticing a lot less posts using the burn function when wanting to promote posts and this is because it won't change the fact that curators will still earn less if they're the last to vote on posts. So they aren't incentivized to vote something of great quality or importance higher just because the rewards flow back to the DHF or get burned but if they get a bigger share they might be.

This sounds interesting. Curious to see to what extent this will be used.

Damn, I would've lost a lot of hive betting if I had wagered on this comment being positive or negative since it's coming from you. Maybe we do have something really interesting here after all. :D

Lol, no, come on! When have I ever put anything negative on chain :D

But seriously, I remember a few times were I wanted to decline rewards of a post of mine but eventually didn’t since it greatly reduces the exposure one can get by removing the incentive for curators to vote. For this, the solution you are proposing here appears to me as a better alternative. In the long run, to see decent adoption you will probably need to have it integrated as a frontend-solution though.

This is an interesting twist of things!

Basically allow authors to determine what percent to share with the curators.
I have seen some other projects with flexible author curators share, but its usually determent from the curator when voting.

This will be a presetup from the authors.

I would like to see this coded on a blockchain lvl in general.

Abuse comes in mind as like for everything else but I guess down votes should play their role here.

I would like to see this coded on a blockchain lvl in general.

Exactly! Also I would love part of the curation reward to be paid in liquid form so there's more incentivize to power-up. For now we're gonna use @reward.app for that :)

The hidden cut seems a pretty good idea and it will be nice if there's a website to manage it.

If you're going to ™, then ™ properly 😂

Either ALT + 0153 (yeah I remember it off by heart, aren't I sad)

or <sup>TM</sup> TM if you want a bigger ™.

What cadawg said. Come on, if ur gonna do it, do it correct.

  • The TM god

I read this thinking it would be something else... is there an app feature available to give part of my author rewards from a post to multiple specific accounts? Right now I think we can only set it to one single account. I thought it would be a good reward feature to be able to designate more recipients.

This is an interesting experiment too. I am all for any program that gets people more interested in increasing ROI altruistically to people who deserve it. This seems more like a blind deal between curators and authors to increase both of their ROI's.

part of my author rewards from a post to multiple specific accounts?

You can already do this through the front-ends, up to 8 accounts I believe or maybe more. Just set the % you want to give to each account before posting.

This seems more like a blind deal between curators and authors

Yeah but at the same time it doesn't have to be blind, we're going to add that option in the future but right now you can check what % they set by sending @reward.app a memo with a number from 0 to 100 which defines the % of author rewards they want their next post to go to curators. Then of course you also need to verify they set @reward.app as beneficiaries to know that's what's going to occur.

Sounds like you got it figured out.

And thanks for the info about beneficiaries. I definitely feel like a few people I know deserve more than they are getting.

Sounds like a pretty neat idea. Wonder how many people will start bots voting for posts with you set as the beneficiary(and even more sophisticated bots vote for those with the highest % back to curators) with this though. Interesting stuff to learn. I do think as this grows, voting patters might change to target users of this more.

Yeah, in the beginning probably not many but that's also why we want to add the "hidden" feature so some authors may not even set extra curation rewards.

most curators out there who are curating content for the content and not attempting to maximize their rewards, are losing out to those who are doing the opposite.

Something that is created so wrong in code and trying to fix with external app and downvotes does not look cool idea at all to me?

Why not fix the code to linear rewards when everyone spotted that current curation scheme is getting played on?

Hardforks require a lot of testing, etc, so at the same time this could be something we could test to see the effects of it and maybe if it shows great results a slider could be added in a future hardfork that allows authors to set their own curation cut however they want.

Linear rewards was something that has been tested for years, and it can be implemented easily.

I think this is a really cool idea. I think one of the biggest challenges and something to be mindful of is just people actually knowing it exists.

In a perfect world there would be a visual indicator on frontends that signify that a post is using this service so that at a glance curators could hone in on the participating posts.

Knowing that doesn't exist and probably won't ever exist I think the next best thing is to come up with a way to market it. Maybe like a regularly promoted post or something? I dunno. I just think people get into their grooves of the way that they do things and people can be slow to adopt new behaviors. I repeatedly commented on artists to post in Communities vs on their own blogs and even though there were clear obvious benefits a lot of them were super slow to do it and some still haven't.

Yeah it's going to be an uphill battle at the start but if we maybe add some additional curation to posts going through our service it could kickstart it a bit. But yeah, who knows maybe @peakd will like the idea and add an indicator for it.

As I mentioned the usage of sending rewards to @null or to the DHF for visibility/promotion has gone down quite a lot because the latter won't change much about how it affects curators.

An interesting concept. However, I'm wondering if it would result in curators changing to only curating those authors who choose to use this, leaving those who already curate for content because they feel it deserves it, rather because they think they can earn from it, in the same predicament as they are already in.

I don't believe it will go that far and as mentioned we will have methods to prevent that from happening by letting authors not publicize what percentage they're giving extra to curators if any.

Can you change the beneficiary after a post has been posted or does it have to be at the time of posting? I know how hard the curators work and this sounds like a great idea to have their time and efforts rewarded for their due diligence. Seems like a win-win experiment that could have greater implications. =)

Beneficiaries can be set only upon post creation :(

I had a feeling... but it never hurts to ask the pros that know! Thanks!

Beneficiaries can't be changed, only at the time of posting when you set them. ^^

Thanks. I literally just posted before checking this out is why i was asking. I will give'r a go next time around! Thanks browski!

In my mind, it's like setting a marketing budget for each post. Although, there would have to be a way of marking the post as having higher rewards. I'll try it a few times.

You can also set the curators share to 0% and just receive the all the post reward in liquid Hive instead of half in Hive Power.

It sounds great idea...i add reward.app account and soon I will try it...

Have a great day...

Innovative concept! It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Authors giving curators a higher cut from their rewards could receive more and larger votes, which in turn would get them the same amount of post rewards they would've gotten either way.

Isn't this mathematically equivalent to using bid bots?

We are already using rewards.app and will most certainly look into this!
No! Confusion reigns, as we are using the "rewarding.app"

Ps. Bookmarked and copied to paste for shares!

is this a good idea? may be. but people wont take this as a good idea or they dont use this. at least i think so!

It's a little too early to ingest this, I'm yawning and drinking coffee after another marathon Urbex day yesterday. I hope you have thought out the anti-abuse problem as humans always look for ways to make more (I'm Vulcan by the way).. however, I am willing to give it a try if it's now alive and kicking.

I never did understand this 5-minute voting window, not it's mechanics, but why it even exists. We did converse about this once, months ago.

On your post it's 50%, but it needs to be obvious to the voters that this is the case. A footer could work.

I saw a few memos with @reward.app and was wondering, this sounds cool.

If you want to give @reward.app a try, all you have to do right now is send @reward.app a memo with the number 0 to 100 which defines the percentage of the author rewards you want to go to curators.

Is this for all future posts in which you set @reward.app as 100% beneficiary?

Sorry I've not been around much, will catch up RE: Engage/POSH when I get back from holidays.

Is this for all future posts in which you set @reward.app as 100% beneficiary?

Yep, but you can always change it at any moment.

Righto, sounds good - nice work!

This is a really good idea and I will try to make use of it for one thing I'm working on where rewards are really only for it to get noticed.

The name is kinda similar to rewarding.app

I am about to test it!
.
.
Never, ever ceased to be surprised with everything around me - great one @acidyo!

I will be looking forward to seeing how this evolves, it could be an opportunity for good content creators

This is going to be cool to see how this experiment play's out!

Hmmm... The question this really raises is just how many tweaks and twists exist to solve some of the issues that exist if we simply apply a dash of creative thought and a liberal sprinkling of lateral thinking.

Occasionally when thoughts turn to such matters we envisage huge development projects and perhaps even wholesale re-writes of code, possibly even a hardfork. Maybe, just maybe far simpler solutions are within our grasp if only we are willing to open our mind to them.

The really exciting prospect to somebody with my particular skillset: none, is that the answer that 'I'm not a dev and a lifelong born and bred technophobe'' is rendered obsolete. Perhaps we all have it in our remit to brainstorm solutions to the problems that we see in our space either alone or in groups... Imagine if you had looked at the solution you wanted to achieve with let's say a dozen of the keenest minds on the blockchain?

How rapidly could new BIG ideas be found?

This will be the year when we start to get a sense of the unlimited, untapped and unstoppable force that we are when we work together, If we put this to work to ensure we never end up in the situations that we have all been in before when we saw a spirit of despair, apathy and hopeless nihilism begin to destroy something we had come to love, we could be so bloody dynamic it is unfathomable.

I am certainly up for the challenge, We have nothing whatsoever to lose by trying creative solutions and perhaps a whole lot to gain. If there are any pesky unforeseens they will come to light when it come's to running the numbers and reviewing the experiment. In which case a great idea can be looked at again and tweaked. Count me in! 😎

I'm always up to exploring new stuff and this experiment sounds like an all round win win situation so let's see what happens! Thank you @acidyo :)

When you write the post you just have to set @reward.app as 100% beneficiary

No other amount works? If I were to set @reward.app as 50% beneficiary and @somerandomhiveaccount as 10% beneficiary, what would happen?

It will work too, but @reward.app will "manage" half of author's reward - and by manage I mean pay in liquid form the author and the curators rewards. So for example instead of 4% of the authors reward paid to curators it's gonna be 2% (50% from 4%).

It may be a stupid question, but how will active curators know this so that they will be given the extra incentive?

We can automatically add a comment (if author wants it) or maybe peakd will integrate it somehow into the interface :)

I find it an interesting idea, it is very unpleasant that an Underrated publication goes unnoticed by the votes that precede the curators of quality content. Entering the susceptible line can be beneficial as well as not, in the same way trying the stew is that you know if it will be good. LOL

Good job. Thank you.

You want to affect the distribution?
Stop voting on posts with more than 5htu in rewards.
Stop voting in excess of 500mv per day.
Anything less is blowing into the wind, iyam.

I'm willing to give it a try! Let's see if this attracts bidbots ~ !!

!tip

🎁 Hi @acidyo! You have received 0.1 HIVE tip from @dswigle!

Check out @dswigle blog here and follow if you like the content :)

Sending tips with @tipU - how to guide.

The ideas is great and I think it will encourage both the authors and the curators to look more dedicated to the team building. Nice update from you @acidyo

Interesting idea!

ohhh... This is interesting! let see what is running to your mind? (^_^) I will wait for it! Let see if it's possible? Nothing wrong to try the experiment. That's why we call the "experiment", then re-doit again to make it perfect!

hi @acidyo

I wonder - why idea of changing power down period from 13 weeks to 4 weeks is bad if more tools similar to @likwid are being introduced. Tools, which only purpose is escape this "13 weeks trap".

I'm seriously unsure what to think about this tool. As some users pointed out - this may bring another wave of bidbots :(

Yours, Piotr

So the goal is making the trending better if I understand right? Does it also aim to improve ROI for some investors? If that’s the case, does it also mean before curators vote, it’d be more efficient if they check the number (0-100) that user sent to reward.app, or is ut believed that with this mechanism trending will be improved in a natural way?

Scenarios I see this can work:

  1. It'll normalise downvotes more,maybe it will, as number higher, more curators tend to vote, the rewards taken with dv are more from curation rewards rather author, so author has less reason for retaliation?
  2. If 1) won't work, then it will be just like when we had bidbot back in days?

New ideas and experiments are always interesting tho, it’ll be nice to hear your opinion on some of above question.

Thanks.

selfvoting this to see the difference between the curation penalty of voting late compared to the reward from @reward.app that doesn't take it under effect.