sorry I'm a snail to reply, but yes, that basically describes the old system. I think the real problem there was that people were not curating accounts, but rather they curated posts, and some accounts were known to always get large value. It meant even the best curators were only doing 10% of their job after a while. If instead people got some type of curation for entire accounts, then maybe they are always on the lookout for new people, which I think would be ideal. Except now we have moved so far in the opposite direction I don't think anything like that will come. This new way at least lets people vote however they want, which is nice. I just wish there was something more optimal than circlejerking since those people can always win the bids on delegation, but before it was the curators that had the highest returns, and among those, it was the ones spread among largest number of curated accounts that were on top. Now that curation is gone people get less return for delegating, and are 10x more likely to delegate to someone doing shady stuff, since that's the most profitable thing to do now. Even though I like the freedom of voting on anything, it still seems like a major detriment. I really like if 'gaming the system' has a positive result instead.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That is too confusing to me. I don't know the difference between curating accounts and posts. But thanks for the response.