it is an interesting idea I liked it and vote for it



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@aiovo/qwnlnj)</sub></center>

200 is nice to get.  I usually get less (but sometimes get more).  It wouldn't bother me any if this was imposed, but I am not one to want to mess with the way things are.  That said, if it becomes part of the culture I am quite alright with it... and I tend to vote that way already (but at 300).  

My own personal opinion is to let the coins fall where the stake decides to put it... I also think your idea is not a bad one and I encourage you to run with it and see where it goes.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@allcapsonezero/qwis1e)</sub></center>

Interesting proposal idea. We're definitely seeing a 150-200 POB baseline for the higher end posts at the moment, but that too will drop over time as more tokens are realised into the community. This highlights the need for some form of scaling basis if the limit was taken on board. 

We're always going to fall into pitfalls if we look back at reward allocation from the past and compare it to the present (I recall yourself and madstacks having large rewards in the early days quite frequently and fortunately you're still around in the community), although it is important for us to weigh up multiple factors if we are going to judge based on post rewards alone.

Discussion about over-rewarded posts and what constitutes that is a good step forward. I think this was needed prior to @trostparadox's proposal about downvoting because it was an unanswered question that left some uncertainty in the air.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@calumam/qwjenm)</sub></center>

You guys should make me understand why one content cannot have more than 200POB 

I mean those who vote see it deserving, don't they? 

Most of us don't vote based on rewards, we vote posts we have read and found it valuable 

Also, I thought, the reason most posts gets more than enough votes is so that it can trend for more views on that particular post, probably, because of the message embedded in the article... I'm I wrong?



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@edystringz/qwhqr4)</sub></center>

I think it's a good idea to set a max on rewards. It's fair to get rewards based on content, not on the number of followers or people that upvote you.  

I also think it would be better when this will be handled technically instead of by the community via downvotes or better vote distribution. Stimulating better vote distribution is good, but won't solve the problem because of autovoting and voting trails. Downvoting when it is a quality post doesn't feel very well.    

Isn't there a way to technically implement a ceiling?



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@friendlymoose/qwl370)</sub></center>

The thing is, people will always find a way to go around. You put 200 per post, they will write 2 posts per day, and still get the 400 they got now for a post. We need a better, more elegant solution. And not to forget, most of us are here for the money, and few of us are here for the fun and community.

Maybe a limit per user, from the other user curation, let's say monthly or weekly. like no more than X where X it is an acceptable majority voted value. 

Maybe a limit per user, from the other user curation, let's say monthly or weekly. like no more than X where X it is an acceptable majority voted value. 



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@heruvim1978/qwi9bt)</sub></center>

Although I understand your idea, I don't like the Downvote part.

I also don't see a problem if a publication goes above 300 POB or more. If she deserved it and was truly worthy. Someone will not always win this.

So limiting how much a person earns is boring and I would be discouraged from continuing to write as they put a limit. And remembering that POB along with VIBES are one of the few tribes that few tokens have in circulation from large and well-known communities...

Taking advantage of the fact that @onealfa.pob is in the comments would be something contrary to the maximum vote he gives, for example, in LEO and which does not repeat more than 1x per month for the same user.

So writing, studying and putting together a nice post to be limited? This is boring.

Now I agree with the issue of many other posts being above this limit equal to the same @onealfa.pob posted. And simply when the content is very generic or being favored always the same... Unfortunately this happens.


That's why a few days ago I put up this proposal for curating posts that bring some kind of involvement and contest to the POB and that it's like a real POB. [HERE](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@hranhuk/how-pob-encouraged-me-to-continue-writing-my-book).

As for the price, it is the market trend. The POB just adjusted its values ​​that before were mere speculation. As long as there is a lack of real projects and causes for the tribe, we will not see values ​​as high as before. Only if a whale decides to take an interest as it used to. But it will be soon.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@hranhuk/qwi1vk)</sub></center>

We are in the early days of POB, and our annual inflation over the year coming will be in the hundreds of percent!  This is the journey BTC took.  Although percentage wise Inflation is reducing, absolute inflation will be constant until the first halvening.

I don't think it should be up to us to limit the amount an author gets.  It smacks  of income limiting.  Is the post worth my vote or and how much of it?  That is where my thought process ends.  It wont bother me whether you get more than $30 for this post.

I didn't even see this post, I vote no to ceiling 

>The value has to be something that doesn't affect content creators too much so as not to discourage them from continuing, but neither does its implementation make a difference

Thanks for this important topic the truth is that i don't really think it is better to write post. Cos the reward some people get does not usually correlate with effort spent in typing the post. I once discuss with someone who told me he loves posting but each time he post he always feel discourage and embarrassed because of the reward he do get from posting.

I have see a post today that someone post error and yet the person got 10pob just because of autovoting. I am even surprise that some that have high voting power still vote the content and this is the reason why i don't think autovoting is right. Check the post [here](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-167922/@zazufund/hello-i-am-zazufund-and-this-is-my-mission-for-leofinance) to see reason why i think auto voting is wrong as well. Now compare it to a post like [this](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@abimbola753/attitude-that-must-be-imbibed) having 1.54 pob. ***Tell me how do you expect someone like this to think of posting a meaningful post next time?***

@vempromundo i second your opinion and i think something has to be done regarding this. I wish this my message can be sent to every other person as well.

Honestly the community can be discouraging to some creative writer.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@nikkybabe/qwijez)</sub></center>

## I like this!
At least first small steps against circle-jerkers. Count on my support on this route.

>Very few publications manage to exceed this value, and when they do, they don't go much further. 

Are you serious? Very few? Don't go much further?

How about this:

[![top2authors.jpg](https://images.hive.blog/DQmca9E2gqTyT1HsAdV8JuhSkVjvojBMjAw57FLoMRC2JF9/top2authors.jpg)](https://images.hive.blog/DQmca9E2gqTyT1HsAdV8JuhSkVjvojBMjAw57FLoMRC2JF9/top2authors.jpg)
[click for full size]

 Only those posts above 230+ POB has been selected.
200+ POB they get on 95+% of their posts, no matter what's inside the post itself.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@onealfa.pob/qwhqqe)</sub></center>

Hey bro, I thought the initiative to address this topic was cool, and from what I read in the comments it generated a lot of engagement.

But, I completely disagree with a maximum value, in my opinion this would distort the perception of value about the token and the act of curating and authoring itself in a negative way, generating more problems arising from the distortion of supply and demand.

One thing we've learned in failed economies is that the more rules are enforced, the closer that economy tends to collapse.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@ralexandria/qwpxem)</sub></center>

I agree, I made a similar suggestion years ago on Steemit. I would also suggest auto staking some of the earned POB when paying out. Auto stake will help with keeping  POB off the sales market.

I appreciate your concerns regarding inflation and suggestions to carry out a more pulled back approach with curation in the community. I don't think capping rewards at any  number would be a good idea. I have some reasons and more to say and I don't usually shy away writing essay kind of comments 😅 But since this has came up in a few threads several times before and is something relevant to the whole community,  I will write a post. 🧐



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@shubhwaj/qwi2ck)</sub></center>

While I completely agree that some people getting such high rewards everytime on their posts, no matter what they post, is wrong. 

One day I was just going through the trending posts and trying to analyze what's in it that they are getting such heavy rewards and honestly, found some of them to be really absurd. I mean where I would not want to upvote at all. Again, that's a very subjective matter and I don't intend to disrespect either the author or the curators but we got to value the content that adds the most value. 

That being said, I don't think capping is a really good idea because that would take away the charm of getting great upvotes. If I know the max I can get is this much, I would not put additional effort to get more. Some of us work really hard to get good upvotes and it's a great feeling to get a +100 POB upvote occasionally. And then the upvote value goes up to +150 sometimes. And it's so good to see that value rising. But if there's a cap on it, as an author, it would demotivate me to deliver good quality content.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@sugandhaseth/qwn6vu)</sub></center>

Also there must be clear understanding of the proposal drafted,

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@supriya.gupta/re-vempromundo-6lizu6)

i think there should be a way to reward writers i mean a fix reward for every content writer,but getting rids of fake and abusive content is necessary so i think this is where down vote is important,  but i suggest that downvote should not reduce the reward but rather give signal to the admin to review the post and now judge the content if it is worthy of reward



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@timmzey/qwhm93)</sub></center>

Kudos to @vempromundo for drafting this and seeking debate and comments! 

I will be upvoting the post to maximize engagement, even though the post is already above the draft 'ceiling' value of 200 POB.

In any event, I cannot say I have formed any significant thoughts or opinions on this issue, as of yet.

***My main suggestion:  I think we really need to clarify at the outset what behavior(s) we are wanting to influence.***

That is necessary so we can play devil's advocate and identify the ways folks might be able to 'game' the system.

As @heruvim1978 pointed out [here](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@heruvim1978/qwi9bt), an author taking what would have been published as a single post and publishing it as two posts easily circumvents the ceiling.

If circle-voting is the issue, then multiple posts also circumvents the intention behind the ceiling.

If the issue is trying to keep POB tokens from being consolidated by too few account holders, multiple accounts and/or multiple posts would be an easy work-around.

If the issue is 'over-rewarded' posts, then as @scholaris.pob pointed out [here](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@scholaris.pob/qwiy7g), we probably need to establish some objective standards first.

I have had some recent discussions with @scholaris about the 'over-reward' issue.  I think he and I are in agreement that monitoring and policing of excess rewards needs to be at the community-level and needs to be based on some objective standards (i.e. an author should have some idea the 'max reward' his/her post will receive *before publishing it*; similarly, an upvoter should have some idea *prior to upvoting* whether his/her upvote is going to put a post beyond the community's standards for 'max reward').

A single 'max reward' per post is certainly very objective (which is good), but it fails to take into consideration other issues, such as length of post, effort associated with authoring the post, and the fact that sometimes rewards are given based on more than just the direct content of the post at hand (what I refer to as 'nuanced voting').

For example, I have upvoted @leprechaun's posts about his work on a new PoB front-end not because of the content of the posts themselves *per se* ,but because of all the behind-the-scenes efforts that are going into creating that new front-end.

Here is another example:  @onealfa.pob gave a 100% upvote to a 40-word comment [here](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@melbourneswest/qw7ygp) with the promise of ["owing [the commenter] a few more 100% UP's for that"](https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@onealfa.pob/qwa0jz) -- based on his agreement with what was stated in those 40 words.

Maybe the community wants to put a stop to 'nuanced' upvoting, where the curator is voting for more than just the direct effort put into the content of the post at hand.  If so, as I mentioned above, whatever *behavior(s)* we want to specifically disincentivize (i.e. penalize) should be clearly identified as a precursor to creating the associated 'rules' or protocols meant to influence those behaviors.



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@trostparadox/qwmu3a)</sub></center>

Hello everyone, I want to suggest that the maximum reward should be considered in USD fiat currency, not on POB. I wish POB reach $1 but what if it stays around 0.1 or 0.2$. Then you think 200 POB is very much amount. We can see Posts upto 100$ on hive and trending page. The community can decide the maximum amount, 50 or 100$ but my concern is it should be in usd. We don't know how pob price gonna change, so judging the amount of POB on a post is not fair. I also request the POB developers to add a option of displaying authors rewards in USD and POB both as we have in Leofinance. It's just my point of view, what say friends?



---

<center><sub>Posted via [proofofbrain.io](https://www.proofofbrain.io/@vikbuddy/qwiyxo)</sub></center>