It's much better to develop tools and allow individual communities and their mods/curators to collaborate and figure out ways to mitigate things within their own boundaries and in their own terms
I would agree with this if communities were providing their own reward funds, but since the reward funds all come from the commons of Hive stakeholders, Hive stakeholders have an unavoidable interest in how rewards are paid or not paid.
I'd be all for revamping how rewards work. For example, reallocate all of the common funds to DHF, and individual communities can then make proposals for their own reward funds, which they manage as they see fit. I don't think the one common pool has ever worked very well.
(The above was not meant as a specific proposal, which would require much greater attention and detail, it was a quick idea off the top of my head how the common reward pool which has not added much value and has always been very contentious could be restructured. There are probably better ways.)
We have had small curator-friendly tools developed at little to no cost.
The point is to enable the assigned curators to do what the curation initiatives or delegators expected them to do.
As for more sophisticated tools, I'm sure the stakeholders can fund the development of better algorithms through the DHF to detect certain abuses. There could be multiple people who hang out in the Hive Discord or whatever to scrutinize the feeds, etc. in the open.
The current system is broken. It's like letting the Demiurge pretend he's the Creator God of the universe.
As for rewards, yes, I do agree that some revamp needs to happen. This common pool is cursed.
That's a great idea, but will it increase decentralization and what are the attack vectors?
Host server, I suppose. The bot's database is separate for each server it serves in.
I see, that seems to be rather a feature.
Is this relate to above post?