Thank you for your input @blocktrades. Could you please explain how it makes the original whitepaper's argument invalid?
RE: Why I Advise Against Linear Reward
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why I Advise Against Linear Reward
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
The existing non-linearity already gives an incentive to curators to vote on posts that other people will also likely vote on rather than simply self-voting.
The reason this doesn't work well in practice is at least in part to the fact that most of the rewards go to the author rather than the curators under the current rules.
The other problem is few people understand the real rules which are essentially undocumented and end up fighting shadows.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm open to any solutions that resolve the current situation. I'm interested to hear more on this type of solution involving the current % allocated to curators.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Pay more for curators than authors and people will vote for others instead.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Pointing to the whitepaper and appealing to Steemit, I feel like I'm listening to a BCASHer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I hold the same arguments as the whitepaper and I've stated in my words why so. I'm not appealing to Steemit. I've incorporated the facts and statements mention in this post because I felt they were valuable to the subject.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Alright, to answer your above question to blocktrade, it doesn't make the whitpaper invalid. It just make your title lose meaning. It's not actually linear and never has been.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fair point but it doesn't invalidate my overall argument.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Isn't your overall argument that you're against linear reward?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Linear in reward to how rshares allocated to author rewards are calculated.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Name calling isn't helpful
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit