This cannot be taken advantage of.

There are many edge cases to what you proposed.

Please list them.

Instead of editing adding here, maybe I am mistaken. If its just changing the timestamp and weight on the same vote it is atomic.
I could be wrong and this is much simpler to implement than it looks.

  1. Re Calcuating the upvote is taking out the previous vote and adding a new vote. These are 2 operations. Should it be atomic? Is it a transaction if one fails.
  2. If its not atomic what happens in the curation limits? Lets say 24 hours exactly. Taking out the before 24h will affect more than adding the latter.

I am not saying its not a good idea, but as we saw with curation until today, any complexity is usually taken advantage by bots and keeping it simple (as much as can be in this phase with all the must complexity) seems like the way to go.

It cannot be taken advantage of.

If you vote 1% at 10 minutes, you are near the front of the line. 2 days later you decide you want to give it 25% instead, you are charged 15% voting power to raise your vote to 25% and you are now at the end of the line.

In fact, it would close a loophole being actively manipulated right now.

You mean charged 24% right? The delta

Sorry yes I was used to using 10% and 25% as my example.