Viewing a response to: @arhag/re-smooth-re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161118t195900774z
I think I like the idea of 3 separated pool rewards. At least 2 separated pool for posts and comments the way @arhag propose really seems to make a lot of sense. I'll be awaiting more tinkering, details and comments to make a better opinion of those proposals. Also I'm not sure I understand the statement below. If comments don't have curation rewards then what will be the incentives to vote for those comments? > Comments should not have curation rewards because those who are reading have already found the discussion by other means. What @smooth said is a no brainer in my opinion. > Voting up the most insightful, entertaining, etc. comments can be both non-trivial effort and add a lot of value.
author | teamsteem |
---|---|
permlink | re-arhag-re-smooth-re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161119t032135438z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | {"tags":["steem"],"users":["arhag","smooth"]} |
created | 2016-11-19 03:21:30 |
last_update | 2016-11-19 03:21:30 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
last_payout | 2016-12-19 18:20:15 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
promoted | 0.000 HBD |
body_length | 708 |
author_reputation | 284,804,541,406,803 |
root_title | "Proposed Upgrade for Blockchain Incentives" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
percent_hbd | 10,000 |
post_id | 1,799,786 |
net_rshares | 7,960,250,646 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
teamsteem | 0 | 7,226,182,908 | 1% | ||
lamech-m | 0 | 86,463,815 | 1% | ||
moondancer762 | 0 | 647,603,923 | 100% |