Whatever happens it better not just be some new experiment slopped together then exploited for a year or more. I think I'll just leave it at that. LOL!
Self serving profiteers abused flat curation into the ground but we didn't have free downvotes to counter exploits. Now we do.
Yes with flat curation its only to downvotes to stop abuse.... or dunno some hybrid, flat then curve ...
Downvotes are sensitive right now vs auto votes because autovotes are needed if you want to get any type of curation rewards. I sacrifice up to 100% of my curation rewards, meaning if I auto voted popular authors at 5mins, instead of voting 100% manual the way I do, I could earn up to 2-3x more rewards. So for a person with even less stake than me, let's say they own .01% of the supply. Are we really going to rely on this type of stakeholder to sacrifice tremendous short term gains to hold out in hopes the token price appreciates due to their good-natured curation? Are these bad people for not wanting to get screwed over? We are downvoting our friends, fellow Hivers, for doing the obvious and what the system encourages.
We flip the script, widen or even remove the window altogether, whatever we need to do to give manual curators as much of an edge as possible in earning rewards vs Autobots. Right now, that would be the suggestion being thrown around.
In the new rule system, a longer/removed window with flat curation rewards inside (no early penalty) - manual curators for the first time ever will have an edge. Why? Because autobots vote post titled "Please don't vote this post, deleted" and they get downvoted to earn nothing, actually happens quite a bit, enough to tac a % next to it that matters. Also, autobots have no way to tell if they are under rewarding a post that would not get them downvoted.
With the invention of microblogging, small vote gamification setups, I make DBuzz all the time just to throw a wrench at my autobot voters (I don't dislike you, much love to you for doing what the system encourages you to do, we'll fix that for all) and the max payout is only 1$. Well, manual voters are like NEO here, dodging bullets (downvotes) with their votes, reading content, getting fairly rewarded and life is nice.
Thanks for the reply.
As we know LEO is totally flat curation and I'm ok with that.
What I'm struggling to understand with the larger voting window is the following:
If we make the curation in the window flat, no early voting penalty ... lets say for a 24h.
When votes comes after the window will the ones voting in the window get higher CR? Will all of them get CR from the votes outside the window at equal rate, or the ones voting early will get a bit more? If the ones voting early get higher CR then we will see autovotes at first seconds.
If we agree that everyone who voted in the window get some bonus CR from the votes outside the window, this inclines towards flat curation. Especially if we make the window 24h when most of the voting happens.
Just thinking out loud here :)
You are correct in your last statement. The curation will be flat inside a longer window. Those that vote inside the window will earn more than those that vote outside of the window. Talks are 2-24 hours but I'm hearing a lot of support for now window at all.
Does the re-blog tool have any say on the curation rewards?
If not, it could be a good measure of commitment by the curator to reblog a valuable post, making her/himself a true curator with a beautiful blog page to attract others.
Then the algorithm can use that as a final say on rewards distribution at day 7th.
If the re-blogger gets more attention then it deserves better payouts.
Every angle must be covered before moving forward. If the common goal is to give manual curation a fair shake, then it shouldn't be hard to get there. We just need to agree on where we're going first.
Randomizing vote order at payout. In my mind that solves our current 'problem' without reinventing the wheel.