The issue you are describing is that self-voting whales will now be waiting until the "early voting penalty period" is over, which will increase their rewards from self-voting because other users will be front-running their votes.
There are two possible scenarios:
- The amount they will get from this is more than the curation rewards they would currently receive by self-voting as soon as the post is created.
- The amount they will get from this is less than the curation rewards they would currently receive by self-voting as soon as the post is created.
If 1 is true (which is what you are asserting) then they can already do this today. This change is not enabling any abuse that is not already possible. Steemit could exclude the proposed change from the hardfork and all the self-voting whales could start doing this to increase their profit.
If 2 is true, then they will be making less under the new system, so there is no issue.
was there not to be the ability to edit posts with this update?
That should be part of the AppBase release. I think this post was just about the stuff they had specifically been working on. That change was technically completed a while ago, and is just waiting for the release to be deployed.
Less of an issue.
This entire comment chain is exemplary of the problem that variably valuing votes, and rewards for both creators and curators, by timing and etc., introduces - IMHO unnecessarily.
Want curation to actually better reward content based on the value of the content? Get rid of all the timing and games that vary the value of votes on content.
Deal with bots separately. SOC (SMTs, oracles, and communities) will make that possible. Gamifying curation simply incentivizes playing games, rather than rewarding good content rationally.
I hope to see this realized at some time. I expect SOC will make it obviously a necessary solution to many that presently don't understand how gamifying curation degrades curation quality.
Thanks for clarifying this complexity as you have. I hope we can simplify curation significantly soon, as doing so will make good content - and the people that make it - more valuable than knowing how to manipulate the rewards system.
There is talk of doing this, but no consensus yet.
Curious how
I am happy to hear that folks you listen to are discussing simplifying curation.
As to how SOC can deal with bots, in his talk in Korea @ned (whom I believe would not make idle speculations on the matter) stated that oracles are able to ascertain whether an account is A) a human person, and B) even a unique user. Communities intent on being bot free can rely on such oracles to exclude bots and socks.
The actual detection of bots is complex, and I don't pretend to grasp the details. If @ned did not misspeak (and I did not misunderstand), and can be relied on, then oracles make it possible for communities to exclude bots.
Yes, Oracles (used with SMTs) will be one way of dealing with this problem. I am in support of those changes.
There is coming a fruit of diligent nurturing of principle in action that I greatly anticipate. Good people will join their ilk in doing good.
Nothing will more encourage those whose actions heretofore have neglected beneficence to undertake it, and I can scarcely comprehend the potential of such mutual action to effect felicitous society.
Thanks for your personal dedication and work to that end.