RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)

avatar
(Edited)

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount.

That's why I thought you would mean or at least consider it:

Although I suppose you can always take out the same amount off the pool for both and then return the excess from the author side (generated by DVs) even without skewing the 50/50 split.

Aber Englisch ist nicht meine Muttersprache.
Wie dem auch sei, den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen und den Curationreward vom 'Votegewicht' des Votenden, ist eine sehr interessante Idee.



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

Dein English ist besser als mein Deutsch.

den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen

I never proposed that. Anyone can run thousands of accounts. There are ways to counter that but I do not consider them viable (some inadequate, others unwanted). I support DPoS despite most other DPoS fans make me feel embarassed.

even without skewing the 50/50 split.

I admit that was my turn to keep it too short. Let me elaborate. With incentivised DVs, you can expect everyone to use it as much as they use UVs. If we keep the current 4-1 ratio (not sure we should), we can expect an average post of 100 curated to end up at 60 value (80 worth of UV and 20 worth of DV).

Leaving it like that would mean nerfing authors'cut. Effectively, we introduced a new balance of 62.5/37.5 Curators/Authors' cut.

To avoid skewing the 50/50 split, we can change the DAO payout to 62.5/37.5 Authors/Curators. The abovementioned post that attracted 100 rewards (80 UV rewards + 20 DV rewards) gives 37.5 to Curators (37.5% of 100), 37.5 to Author (62.5% of 60) and returns 25 back to DAO. That way the 50/50 split is kept in the macro perspective.

0
0
0.000