create account

RE: Proposed Upgrade for Blockchain Incentives by arcurus

View this thread on: hive.blogpeakd.comecency.com

Viewing a response to: @smooth/re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161118t182500000z

· @arcurus ·
@smooth the problem that voting on comments dilutes your voting power can be solved through using Segregated voting power for each category per user.  

Generally i love the idea of having segregated reward funds. Because this could evolve to a kind of virtual nation / federation.  
Which categories are used and their percentage of the the reward funds should not be set in stone. Instead users should be able to vote on it. For example a change would need 2/3 positive votes over a period of 1 month. 

The number of changes per time period should also be limited to avoid change suggestion spamming. For example each month only the top voted 5 changes with 2/3 positive votes are taken. This number itself could be voted on the same way. 

The same way voting could also be done on the curation percentage in an category. So @smooth could vote for a smooth comment curation payout :)
👍  
properties (23)
authorarcurus
permlinkre-smooth-re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161206t180257183z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"users":["smooth"]}
created2016-12-06 18:02:57
last_update2016-12-06 18:02:57
depth2
children0
last_payout2016-12-19 18:20:15
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length887
author_reputation549,553,053,579
root_title"Proposed Upgrade for Blockchain Incentives"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id1,934,586
net_rshares104,066,445,589
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)