I think the way we do over on ocd can work by assigning some additional author rewards for curators to go out and look for posts and authors that try yet don't get seen or rewarded much.
Many like to say the rewards pool shouldn't be used that way but we all know the amount of work it takes to properly curate and go out and look, research and investigate certain accounts and their activities before deeming them genuine enough to get rewarded - especially with so many attempting to cheat and fake activity for the rewards.
This gives those curators putting in extra amount of work an edge over those who could just use their stake to trail or autovote and earn passively since they'll earn the same as someone putting in a lot of work to help retention and the health of newer or overlooked accounts.
Hello acidyo,
Thank you for your response. I understand how OCD works, and I certainly agree that it's an initiative pointing in the right direction; rewarding the people who undertake this work with more value makes perfect sense to me.
However, as other challenges inherent to the ecosystem, I believe from my perspective that mitigating these problems should not rest exclusively on the shoulders of the users (a selected few, in fact). In an ideal world, one should publish when genuinely have something valuable to say. But this premise changes drastically when the economic factor comes into play, which incentivizes a dynamic of constant publication that doesn't always align with the depth or the actual need to communicate.
That being said, I recognize that many of these Base (Hive's structural) problems will likely not have a clear and definitive solution. Even if one were to exist, it would most probably be highly complex and scarcely viable. This is precisely why initiatives like the ones you (and your team) handle are so valuable: they act as palliatives for several of the existing problems that are very difficult to solve.
Pp.
"farming" so to speak or people posting often doesn't have to be an issue. Sure some may milk more hive than others that way for now but I think over time and with more users we may see that change where curators are forced to ignore certain farmy users because there's so much other more deserving content and newer users to reward.
Hello, me again...
I understand what you mean, and I get the logic behind the idea that an increase in the supply of authors should bring new talents who would eventually displace empty content.
But, we could also apply the logic that HIVE is currently a small sample of a much more larger population, and more people joining doesn't guarante us that we'll be flooded with quality authors and content. On the contrary, it might become harder to us to find them as the waters get denser and denser. Since currently there's no mechanism for rewards to value quality over quantity, the most likely outcome would be an influx of content and users merely seeking to obtain the maximum possible in the shortest amount of time.
That being said, I'd also like to offer my grain of salt, if post rewards were someway linked to reputation, and its calculation were based on recent performance, people would be forced to spend 'x' amount of months building their reputation before the rewards become 'juicy,' so to speak.
Something similar could apply if the RC cost to publish a post were much much higher, this would limit compulsive posting from new accounts and would require users to adapt our accounts or publishing schedules accordingly, more content need more RC, but also mean that all that contet shlould be good to keep a good grade (talking in reputation terms), so people invest (Hive in this case) to publish daily and make good content daily or post weekly which give you more time to make good content.
But hey, these are just ideas that come to me while I´m writing these paragraphs, and as I said before, it's very difficult for someone like me to make a change in such a large ecosystem.
Pp.