Good post.
From my perspective, the motivation of curation reward is to cope with bot problem. The bot problem is located at the interaction among 1) superlinear reward calculation system, 2) gamified curation (30min window, front-running), and 3) financial incentives to upvotes.
As told in sigmajin's post, if n system replaces superlinear systems I think removing curation reward is much less needed (or not needed). But if we keep any superlinear system, there will be bots that seek higher rewards.
I like @smooth's idea about n with dynamic threshold to discourage self-voting. It seems simpler, efficient, and fair.
With all due respect, @clayop, I respect your position in this community and I thoroughly respect your infinitely superior knowledge of IT at large. I have no axe to grind on any personal level, though I have been treated like a pariah ever since `I raised the issue months ago.
Self-voting is about number n squared on the agenda.
Algorithmic curation systems are a blight.
People who 'Game' are causing structural damage to the platform.
My 4 cent valuation will go to 0.4.
[There goes any decent vote I had left!]
Businesses have metrics of determination - this one is choosing all the wrong numbers, words and so forth.
Blockchain is almost synonymous with distribution.
Distribution is not happening, is not allowed to happen, is prevented from happening.
If we could regress to July, what you have advocated? The same strategy or something different?
If we reverse the clock to July, I will still strongly argue for replacing n^2 with a linear distribution system, which has long been complained by Korean community members. I am not sure I will be against curation reward because we don't have serious bot problem in July, but basically my thought is that the current curation reward system doesn't help the growth of Steem so at least it should be modified.
Thank you @clayop, I very much respect the sentiment of your reply. I hope now that you can see that I am not the moaner but the person who has a positive vision.
To be perfectly frank, n^2 was not something I learned for my 1981 A Level in statistics and it remains a mystery. I shall go and learn up upon my gaps in knowledge.
Thank you also for your seeing that the current system is not productive. What matters is the resolution of risk/reward and fairness such that steemit can set itself on a course with a fair wind.
Namaste!
Yes, he was talking about that last night and it seems like either the "n log(n)" or the dynamic threshold would be a better algorithm than the current one. I think either one of those, in conjunction with a larger share of curation for payouts, would correct a lot of the payout disparities for both posting and curating.
Very clearly put, thank you 🙂