I would just prefur leo's approach that way at least the bots are not getting an advantage over manual curators.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I would just prefur leo's approach that way at least the bots are not getting an advantage over manual curators.
My issue with Leo's linear-rewards approach (the way I understand it) is this:
Why not just allow accounts to receive their 'curation' reward of 50% even when they are not actually curating (with the other 50% spread across all content creators proportionally).
By doing that, those who are not manually curating are in effect just amplifying the voting power of those who are (but aren't losing out on anything by opting out of the curation process).
In other words, remove the incentive to use auto-voting for base rewards capture.
Granted, that removes all financial incentive to curate; but is that a bad thing? Maybe not. Curation then becomes a voluntary social act. The number of curators will drop (perhaps significantly), but the quality of the curation might go up.
In summary, with a linear protocol, why incentivize auto-voting bots that add noise to the manual curation pool, when you can just let those who opt out of curating earn their 50% reward? That would be a much cleaner implementation of linear rewards, imho.