If you are going to cut author rewards, I suggest pooling that change with something that will disincentivize using bitbots. The reward pool is incredibly distorted by big players who buy (and sell) votes to maintain a disproportionate share of the reward pool. That needs to be addressed as well, because right now, bidbots are the biggest "work payment" program out here, and it is not good for the blockchain at all.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Lowering author rewards will disincentivize using bidbots somewhat, but I doubt it will be enough to discourage their use completely by any means. But it is logical to assume that bidbots will make less as a result.
Is there a way to directly address vote-buying?
At the moment we are in situation where vote buying and selling is beneficial to both the buyer and seller but is damaging to everyone else around them.
I think the best solution is to offer better alternatives. Higher curation rewards and higher returns from DApps could discourage users from delegating to bots. DApps could use advertising to raise revenue and they could share this revenue with delegators.
Fontends could offer promotion services that actually targets an audience rather than just littering trending pages. After all, real content creators want their work to be seen by the right audience more than a few dollars out of ROI.
Well, at least increasing the curation rewards will keep bidbots making the paper, until authors flee altogether. No authors, no bidbots.