Perhaps, there is a need to distinguish between two kinds of curators: those that focus on the value contributed by content creators and those that invest capital to earn from curation. I think both are giving value to the Hive ecosystem though in a different way. However, as for those who want to earn from curation without increasing their HP, I doubt that they can go a long way.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You can always earn from curation, that's built into the mechanics of the blockchain. You can earn just as much from giving preference to posts that contribute to building a middle class and make our ecosystem grow, while still voting on content about cats and pancakes.
The emphasis of the first kind of curator is more on the value that the creators give to the platform through quality content. The second on the other hand is not much on content quality but the return on his capital. I think both are built into the system.
You keep talking about two kinds of curators. What I'm saying is not mutually exclusive.
The same curator (let's call him "Ed", lol) can vote on
Ed is one person, one curator, but he gave preference to a post that helps build visibility, understanding, value, and use-cases of our ecosystem.
Well, that's how I reconcile the way I read your article. Anyhow, thanks for clarifying Ed's preference. No problem with giving an upvote of 50% for those micro posts. I am thinking more of the second kind that just extract value from the chain without regards as to the quality of the posts and yet they still give 100% upvotes. Though that's not ideal, all we can do is share our thoughts hoping that they will be convinced with our reasoning.