You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Its all about the Benjamins -- Or is it?
Upvoted and resteemed for good discussion topic, and great data on the issue.
It is a really great point, and you are right that there are lots of other causes for misaligned voting.
I am curious though, if you look at the data objectively - is there a case for curation rewards causing some bad influence? If so, I would be curious to know what percentage of overall rewards it is influencing.
Certainly. For one thing, many people don't understand the system. So they pile onto trending posts or autovote popular authors believing that they will earn curation rewards that way, when, in fact, it won't. Also, many would argue that wang/recursive's strategy is pretty good for maximizing rewards (beating everyone in and voting in the first 2 minutes and just taking the hit for the reverse auction) and i think that's negative at least to an extent. But i also think that part of things would be trivially easy to solve (just distribute reverse auction money to later voters).
But they also do some good. Because if you look at the people who are really after curation rewards (biophil and ats-david are examples) theyre actually finding and upvoting decent undiscovered content by overlooked authors. And yeah, theyre doing it for the money (i assume). But ive been a business person for most of my life. I can't hate that they are doing it for the money.
that is to say, the people who are really voting the way they do for curation rewards aren't the ones you think and theyre not voting for the posts you think they are.... the posts you think are the beneficiaries of curation reward driven voting offer some of the worst returns possible for that endeavor.