I don't know, it's a very interesting idea because from the perspective of someone who doesn't like bid bots and wants to increase curation rewards, it solves two problems at once. But one person's problem may be another's bread and butter which is why I included "(maybe)". It would be hard to advocate for changing the rules that radically when many stakeholders that would be affected might actually want to keep their influence on the reward pool.
Any change to the rewards/rshares math would also need to be proven to be computationally easy, as that was one of the reasons why linear was chosen.
And yet you don't vote as if you want to increase your curation rewards. In fact pretty much everyone I've come to respect on this platform votes as if curation rewards were lava. Why change the system to attract the opposite sort of people?
Anyway, I figured out a computationally-free and easy-to-implement way to end vote-selling forever while also making life better for everyone but bidbot owners. I'm just trying to figure out when to drop the post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
To be honest my voting habits might be a little different if I had purchased the bulk of my stake on the market rather than holding it from witness earnings.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit