But the curation rewards you're delegating to a bot are being blindly assigned to whoever pays for it, unless it's some type of guild arrangement. That means that any junk that qualifies with the minimum amount of words can be upvoted by you indirectly. I'm not sure I follow your logic, completely respectfully said. If you've delegated to something like @curie or ocd, that's a bit different, and worth clarifying.
RE: Enter a whale's mind
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Enter a whale's mind
That's exactly my point. If you get the curation incentives wrong you get shit content. I have no incentive to curate properly which is why my voting power is used to upvote shit content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Appreciate the reply. We have completely different values and it appears that you're sticking to your guns. Nothing more I can say, but thanks for being honest and handling your responses well.
To each their own, but perhaps you may reflect on whether it'll ever be worth putting people first with a certain percentage of your means. It doesn't have to all be the bottom line of an income statement to be the most valuable if you see that we're all people, not profit centers.
Your post was a great learning experience for me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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
I agree with @steemmatt. From my observations, a big chunk of the paid bot upvotes goes to content that is of low quality (posts that are shit).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's not shitposts but posts that are shit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks! I edited it :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit