interesting blurt allround, but i'm blurting that this doesn't feel right to me. i like stake to have proportional curation influence. just my take
RE: RFC: Rewards
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RFC: Rewards
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 BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Well, we know from other platforms that high stake doesnt necessarily make one a quality curator. What if you earned from your stake directly from 50% of the pool and the other 50% went towards votes?
Great thoughts again imho. However firstly i have a problem with bringing quality into a discussion relating to things like social media, art, taste, thinking etc. Considering that quality (art, thought) is not absolute and is in the eye of the beholder, ie. what i think is quality (thought, art etc) u may find utter rubbish and vv. Secondly i personally feel that reward is a much secondary concern when blurting, i mean it's just wonderful one might earn a reward and that will hopefully encourage more blurting. Whether a piece of BLURT (art, report or a thought etc) represents quality and earns good rewards can and will in the end imho only remain a mystery no matter how much one tries to game it. Hence if quality (art, thought) is a mystery then one can never game it and i happen 2 think quality is a mystery indeed
I agree. Otherwise we take risk.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
Like free transactions, democracy itself is a lie.