You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Thoughts for Curation Guilds
One of the ideas that has been tossed around is having some sort of investor-VESTS that would not have content voting rights (nor earn curation rewards) but would instead benefit from some higher interest rate (equivalent to lower inflation). This would mean that only actual social media users and not investment-motivated holders would be curating and earning curation rewards.
I think this is probably a better solution than curation guilds because even choosing and monitoring a guild that is doing a good job on curation is something that many investors are probably not interested in doing and won't do very well. There are some very tricky issues with making this work though.
Good point. I would support the idea of investor-vests. I think it would potentially solve a large part of the problem. I still really like the idea of guilds though, largely because of the social aspect. I think the idea of people banding together under a shared set of principles to help each other curate could add a lot of value (if it were implemented the right way). IMO, a combination of both curation guilds and investor-vests would be the most ideal.
I support the social aspect of guilds as well, and I agree with the points you made in your post about guilds forming communities, having rankings, ways to communicate, etc. I don't think guilds are a great solution to the problem of investors not wanting to actively curate though, nor do I think it is generally a good idea for stake to be "rented out" (even more than is already happening). Stakeholders banding together to cooperate, exercise quality control over each other, and function as a community I do support.