The issue being put forth is simple: If someone downvotes simply because they got downvoted, that person is a tool. That's always going to be true no matter what kind of changes could get made to the platform.
You're talking to someone who thinks curation should be eliminated entirely, which would obviously end all this autovoting bullshit entirely, because there's no longer a financial incentive to do it. Curation is, and always has been and will be, a stupid zero-sum game that gives bots the advantage when it comes to farming ROI.
The solution is to simply get rid of curation as we know it and apply a bunch of our inflation to the bank accounts (essentially approved self-upvoting via interest rates). The bank accounts can also double as collateral for creating HBD under DeFi protocols.
All of this is kind of irrelevant. If someone sees a post they think is being overpaid they should be able to flag it without the fear of retribution. End of story. These micro-terrorist tactics of retribution flagging are unacceptable and should be punished by consensus in one form or another. I was going to create a dapp called @witchunt that does just that. We'll see.
Yeah well there you go that's forward thinking, identifying a true fix for the system. I agree with your suggestion entirely and that app would be a positive addition.
I don't agree with your exemption from retaliation though. With the current system the downvote is an option even 'just because'. The thing I find laughable with acidyo is that he thinks just because he's a manual curator he should be special. He often blabbers on about it like he is some gem of crypto. So naturally his feelings get hurt. He doesn't take criticism well.
Maybe, interesting idea.
Mine was a linear curation function so that it doesn't matter when you vote or how many other users have already voted.
Yes, this is what @theycallmedan is pushing as well; not a bad idea.
But tell me, what is the point of that?
Again, this is just the same as self upvoting.
You can literally upvote whatever you want and get a known-in-advance kickback.
The only difference between this idea and adding a lot of interest to the banks accounts is that people who want to self-vote get a say about who appears on the trending tab (should they???). It also forces people to only self-upvote 50% rather than dumping all their stake into the bank account and trying to max ROI.
Personally I like the idea of greedy people exiting the reward pool and moving all their stake to the bank accounts. More upvote power for me.
It also makes zero sense for the network to assume that frontends are curating content based on price. Curation in the form of kickbacks isn't going to make sense in ten years at all because smarter trending tabs are going to be developed that stop people from exploiting the system we have today.
It would be a compromise ... Many stakeholders will tell you that getting no curation rewards at all anymore decreased the attractivity of holding HP too much (also don't forget that since EIP curation rewards got increased to 50 % due to their intervention).
It will be hard enough to convince them of my (and as it seems also @theycallmedan's) suggestion which is somewhat less 'radical'. At least getting some curation rewards could still motivate stakeholders to upvote content at all - and as there wasn't any advantage to upvote early, everybody would be free to upvote what they really like.
That said I personally could live well with your suggestion, and I am not against at least considering it.
Adding a ton of interest to the bank accounts works in their favor more than curation does. They don't have to think about it. They don't have to worry about some bot upvoting the right stuff or doing it manually. They just receive passive ROI. That's what investors want anyway. It's fair and it doesn't cater to developers like curation does.