It's purely economic, that's the point. The logic is simply based on return, not on quality. Since what gets rewarded is de facto quality in the steemit system, @snowflake is able to say "Curation rewards determine the quality of content".
The problem they are highlighting is that it is more worth while for them to sell votes than it is for them to curate with attention because the incentives (read: rewards) favor that in the current system. So - change the system.
You might recall our conversation on this issue from some months ago. I'm glad to see you're more open to the idea now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't remember in what way I have changed my tune. Do you have an example? See my root comment response for more detail on what I actually think, and not an explanatory response to someone.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My recollection is that you and @l0k1 (who sadly, seems to have dropped off the ends of the Earth) were focusing on self voting, and my argument (which remains delinking SP from VP) involved changing the code, which you felt unnecessary at the time.
That was months ago, and I may misrecall, or have misunderstood your position.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We were definitely calling for a code change right from the start, that was what the campaign was about, just not that code change. I remain unconvinced, as I've said elsewhere.
@snowflake 's idea is different again, adjusting curation rewards, which I've supported for some time too.
@l0k1 is long gone. It was sad, not that he's gone, that's for the best, but the manner in which he imploded.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit