https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/63
I always felt that the voting to set rewards should not involve uninvolved parties who do not actually produce content.
I proposed a long time ago that there should be a form of stake that does not grant voting power, but instead pays the staker what their votes would give to others.
The rationale is simple:
Voting system should be peer review. If you don't post, you don't qualify as a peer, and your opinion is just you flouting your (🐓) wondrous stake. The point of big holders voting is to siphon curation rewards. Just give them the whole reward, and be done with it. Then the economic motivation to dispense big votes becomes purely philanthropic.
Without curation rewards, but instead, interest bearing (and liquid interest payments), what motivation is there for disinterested, big stakeholders to interfere with the community of posters? Instead, a big part of the potential voting power would be taken out of the calculations, and for the most part, voting will be done peer to peer, and have a great deal more meaning.
There is a few issues in this, obviously.
Those interest payments will cut into the reward pool. But they were already cutting into the peer to peer nature of the forum. I would argue that with this reason to vote removed (to get those curation rewards) that the voters will be generally more active users who communicate regularly with each other, by comments, and likely in more ephemeral fora like the discord.
In fact, you might say that you could peg the interest payments on non-voting stake to exactly the curation reward percentage, and there is still no reason for them to vote. But maybe giving them the whole of the reward pool for their stake would ensure that it's preferable to stay out of the forum unless you post there.
That theme was discussed on steem before. I think without robust motivation we impact to selfvoting and selfrewarding. I don't think that is what we really want.
You can't make people do what is not in their (perceived) self interest. If you give people the option to get 100% possible curation rewards just by staking, but in doing so lose the ability to affect the votes for rewards, they will choose to stake if they don't care to vote.
And yes, at least one of the people who talked about exactly these two things, was me. As @l0k1 or @elfspice, my two former steem accounts.
I agree with you.
interesting. incentivising concious curation. gaming conciousness visa vv stake rewards. yet, does this mean that posting blurters earn less blurt because there will probably be reduced votes/voting? To alliviate this, perhaps in ur proposed case, posting reward per vote must be increased proportional to the ratio of non-voting interest bearing blurt vv voting-power-enabled powered-up blurt. what u blurt?
No, rewards are not reduced by a reduction in votes (the number of votes will already are reduced by the fee), the distribution includes the whole pool and whatever was voted on gets that part of the pool that is momentarily available to assign to rewards.
Eliminating curation share means 100% of the vote-assigned rewards go to the authors. What I am proposing is to replace it with non-voting stake type that pays liquid rewards (probably weekly) based on the share of stake that would have gone to the 50% split author/curation, and that leaves the other 50% to be added to the rewards pool.
Author rewards go way up, voting is only for philanthropic purposes and participation in deciding what is the best content at any given time, and whales can focus on their fancy hobbies instead of managing their voting to maximise their reward for staking, and not on manipulating the feed, chasing the best curation rewards, and still make the same profit.
I don't see what downside there is to this, though it's a fairly significant change in the protocol.
your proposal is interesting and i see upside where it appears to encourage concious voting, while (as you explain) still maintaining staking and posting well rewarded. up-voting may not only be a philantropic act rather -indirectly- serving the blurt-community with conciousness (whether artificial or human - that is for another discussion?). this in turn by association serves all of humanity, returning these intangible benefits to the up-voter (curator) as well. nice feedback loop u have going there! to be up-blurted! Downsides anyone?
I'm strongly against reducing curation too much, most I would agree to is 25/75 split. See my reasons in this Gitlab issue https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/47
I'm not gonna be happy to say 'I told you so' when the whales of Steem figure out they only lose a little on their spam farming enterprises (from fees) and bring their spam farming operations here. That's what curation incentivises.