Seems fair enough to me. Whales can still have the majority of voting power if they want, and are willing to put in the extra effort to look over some posts. Time being rewarded makes sense. It also makes sense that the post receiving the most accumulated viewing time should get the most rewards.
I'm not sure about the tech side and how one would go about implementing the ideas into code, though, nor the specifics of what the values in your formula should be (maybe "I" in your formula would work better at 30 seconds or 1 minute? This would likely have to be tested in beta before going live.)
Yours are my thoughts, exactly.
As far as your comment about the formula values: I agree that they can be calibrated to be more efficient. The I value in particular might need to be tweaked. Perhaps it could be determined based on like the 3rd or 4th standard deviation of the mean average user time spent on a post.
Let's say that the average works out to about 2 minutes and 30 seconds (or 150 seconds) with a standard deviation of about 40 seconds, then post viewing outside of 3 standard deviations (below the mean) would come in at about 150s - (40s * 3) = 150s - 120s = 30s. So we could attempt by starting at an I of 30 seconds. This would make for up to 60 paid intervals within the 30 minute limit, per post voted on, compared to the 180 paid intervals at an I of 10 seconds.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit