After consulting with PJB I decided is worth posting this:
If the idea is to create the best content rating why, not use similar methods as Facebook and Google use?
In the current system, you can’t accurately determine collusion and the incentive for the best curation is not achieved.
If YUP were to make a system to produce the best possible curation, it would not base the voting system on the assumption that free voting will generate the best results especially when incentives aren’t properly aligned, inner communities exist, and the statistical markup of all curators could be biased.
As such, I would suggest a system where there are 2 phases, in the first phase anyone votes anything they want and will not get rewarded.
The second phase is where the system will randomly pick a number of batches from those votes to be curated, and then send those batches to the curators, curators then will vote and create quality consensus, participating in consensus should be rewarded and the order of participation should not matter much.
This way you achieve 2 things:
1: the distribution will even out a bit and between active quality members and will reduce the pressure on the token.
2: It will create clearly better votes for the network since the incentive will be to do quality voting and be an active member.
This is inspired by how FB and Google do and pay their content rating/validation/curation.
In the current system, you pitch users against each other since half of the user base is in countries known to have a very poor internet connection and maybe users have crappy devices and will FUD that everyone has a bot when the reality is that they received notifications with high delays.
Here’s a poor-man diagram of such a voting system:
I understand this could be difficult to implement, but as a long-time vision at least I think is worth pursuing.
It would be great if 90% of the talk is not about rewards every time, having a simple and robust voting system will reduce this kind of criticism.
As a short time solution maybe just stop rewards that stem from popular accounts, so then even if someone will rate first will get 0 rewards it would be a curious experiment to see how many votes the “popular” accounts will receive then.
But my personal belief is that isn’t a solution long-term, longterm the system must find a better way to incentivize quality votes, which I think is almost impossible if the domain of voting is the whole possible combination of URLs which will always be bigger than what’s possible to curate.
This is my 2 Gwei on the matter, and I would like some feedback.