it is a really broad discourse, being rational, when personal experiences, sensations, emotions can be included in posts, evaluating them in a rational way is almost impossible.
Concur. It is not as though meaningful curation can be reduced to an algorithm but such may be able to assist. Without a human heart informing the decisions based on year of experiences and resulting values, it would in my opinion be an empty endeavor.
For example, a wedding photo with a $ 50 reward would be excessive, but how can we value a sentiment?
Having guidelines is certainly helpful, but in the end it will only be the reasoning of the people who will vote to be able to give the right value to the post.
I did intend my post being a diatribe or against person's valuing content based on the attributes of the content itself. I see nothing wrong with that. Instead, my critique of particular motives for voting that may very well be agnostic to the substance of the content. (E.g. the Ego driven approach)
This is why I strongly vilify curation rewards, as they create an incentive to replace curation with financial manipulation. @blocktrades recent post recommending decreasing curation rewards did improve my understanding of the need for investors for a mechanism producing ROI, but @edicted has proposed a far superior mechanism for that purpose which does not degrade curation.
I've never been against ROI or profits. I've always been against profiteering that harms society, or your preferred term, the chain. Curation rewards terribly degrade actual curation, and we've suffered long the consequences of that on chain.
Savings accounts as suggested by @edicted seem to me a much better mechanism for investors to grow their stakes while allowing human society to value posts per their human values.
Thanks!
Aka the "'I'm giving away money' by actually curating" type of people.
If one is actually engaging in meaningful curation, this implies the other party contributed something.
The connotations of "giving away" suggests one party received something for nothing and in that reasoning lies the fundamental difference in the interpretation.
I mean if it were that way. It would certainly make more sense semantically to call it the donation pool.
I think that is the direction sort of that whaleshares went. Have you seen how things were going over there? It's been ages since I claimed my tip balance.
To simplify this, let's make the proper distinctions between author and curation rewards. For purposes of this discussion, let's focus on the former first.
In the name itself, it is a reward for authorship whoever how we use it has evolved beyond that such was the case w projects such as Utopian, which adds additional utility to that functionality in rewarding off chain development while the DAO was but a glimmer in the whales' eyes.
But, you see, in either case, the reward is not for nothing but to reward some form of activity.
Personally i totally agree on the fact of resizing the value of certain posts, but very often it is precisely those posts that we see in trend that need resizing, and we're aware that those posts can only get those votes thanks to certain whales. How can we match the right rewards to the great whales' hunger for curation?
without considering the fact, that it is enough to be friends with two or three right people, to have excellent rewards on every post. At that point you should review the private ownership of your tokens ... in short, you know what I mean
However, I am always available to cooperate.