ok, i think i understand what youre saying now. and yeah youre right, with that you get a flat-fee curation reward (minus downvotes)... its exactly like always being the first to vote on something thats already after the 30 minute mark... you get a quarter of the value back that you added.
The only thing is, why bother to put any thought into your vote at all at that point.... why not just cast 40 random votes every 24 hours. If we're giving everyone the same reward regardless of the quality of their curation, why not simply build it into the system as SP incentives and have people vote for free.
It's still organic, right?
If you vote manually, at least you see the titles. When you saw the titles, you made judgement.
If you vote with a bot, either you follow authors or tags, or follow other voters, or judge by analyzing the contents, you've done your work/judgement.
If you make bad decisions, others will downvote, so you'll earn less.
Voting on popular contents and making them more popular is not fault. Actually it's why they're popular.
this is a good point
Seems like @abit won you over here! ☺️Is there anything you can think of that might be against this proposal? Just for completeness, I'm scratching my own head 🤔
nesting
Im kind of a cheap date when it comes to linearity. I'm not completely without reservation on making curation performance blind, but there doesnt seem to be an obvious GT problem with it...
There is the old argument that in a truly linear system, everyone will just vote for themselves, but IDK as i necessarily agree that this will happen. ANd as I point out in my 'opponent of the exponent' post, it seems likely that existing steemit institutions can handle potential abuse.
But if every vote pays out the same, why pay?
says the guy who makes more than everyone else
but yeah, this is my only beef with this idea. I think you need at least some front weighting to make people actually try.... though i think the current system has way too much.
"Making a content more popular" is the value later upvoters contributed, why not pay? They evaluate the results done by earlier voters, and confirm it by follow voting, done their work well.