Agree that current rewards system encourages top-poster following and empty "steemit is great your article is awesome" comments. One would think that time-based voting would be enough to encourage thoughtful voting for quality posts of unknown authors - instead of picking low hanging pennies from popular authors, but it is not working, maybe because content hunting is left to the minnows but top posts are created by whales, and there is a large (order of magnitude) gap in voting power.
I do not think top poster handicap is going to solve that divide, though - but I think it could be solved by bringing these posts out through UI changes, maybe making "hot posts from new authors" more prominent.
But we are not handicapping top posters. Rather, top posters benefit more in my proposition.
The idea is that top posters do not need to be discovered for curators, thus the work that the curators did is not as valuable. Therefore the poster should get more of the profit. Whereas for an unestablished poster, they would get less profit from each successful post, but they have a higher chance to be discovered because curators now have a better incentive to try and find these hidden posts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You r right , but i think that how the guys who designed this platform envisaged this platform to be
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Oh, I've read that backwards. That makes total sense, then! New posters should have a way to get noticed, first. Maybe the total amount of previous rewards could automatically set E.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit