Self voting is one issue. Another is bad curation. Curation is supposed to reward finding good content. But the way it is currently set up it doesn't reward 'finding' anything. If you get in early on a post by a user that regularly gets high rewards you get the same as if you got in early on new talent that hasn't been scoring high yet, but has their first break through. The second example is 'finding good content', the first is just betting on a sure thing. Thus no curators are actually incentivised to look for new talent, but instead follow users that are already discovered. It seems that if curation rewards were somehow weighted in relation to the average reward of the posters last X posts, it would go someway to addressing that...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree that the timing of votes is anathema to curation. It doesn't work as the white paper says it would, and, as you point out, is just a means now of manipulating the rewards pool.
I have actually been in a chat room that was created for the purpose of timing posts, so that those there could quickly vote on it, and gain max rewards.
This scam just needs to go away.