RE: Some ideas for future POB Delegations from @proofofbrainio
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
It's not a bad suggestion by any means, but I can see a potential issue that could cause problems.
Members of the community are selected (three) to be in charge of this account and have access to the posting key to upvote content
This could open up a door to potential abuse with no way to hold any specific person accountable. The countermeasure is then changing keys or removing delegation completely which are both not ideal options.
Opening the door for abuse could also be tempting since I don't believe one 100% upvote per week is sufficient per person for the time and effort it takes to do quality manual curation, especially with no personal rewards being received from said curation (curating is a huge responsibility with a larger stake and it's the cog in the machine that makes POB what it is).
I understand that the point above is dependant on the stake size of the account and a 100% upvote will vary, I just know personally that manual curation isn't all smooth sailing and can eat into your time quite easily.
I think this idea is on the right track although I believe that individual accountability is the most important factor when delegations are assigned.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm sitting here with a 5,000 POB delegation, but I know first hand that my behaviors are clear for all to see and if I abuse the power I've been given with this delegation I fully expect it to be taken away. That is the level of accountability that can be precisely pinned on me alone.
I encourage people to follow my voting habits and transfer activity via https://hivestats.io/@calumam and call me out if there is anything that is alarming. I also have a post here which lays out more information regarding my efforts here on the platform.
Well yeah the 100% upvote per week definitely depends on the stake and see many are already manually curating . If we pick the 3 members from those manual curators then it is not "Extra" work for them right ?
100% upvote is just a bonus for them .
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
My point was more directed towards the accountability factor, the upvote isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, just that it's a contributing factor to what makes the efforts of curating on the account worthwhile for the individual.
It seems like it may be better to set up an account to curation trail follow these three members and then they can receive the upvote from the account at the end of the week or whatever. This reduces the chance for abuse and curation trails can be easily disconnected if anything fishy goes on without the need to change the posting key or remove the delegation.
If it was a separate account that those three members had the keys for, they'd have to curate on their own account and then the curation account which would mean more work.
That's exactly what went through my mind too . Instead of sharing keys , it is better to set them on curation trail for the 3 users whom the community votes .
Yeah and eventually they will start following the trail of the "separate account" .
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
It seems like the best way to help out with the distribution, there just needs to be a process where these people can lay down their stats and method for curation (not sure if that's totally necessary but it helps).
I'm not clued up to how this has played out in the past on the main side of HIVE, but if someone has any arguments against this I'm interested. How did OCD, Curie, etc start operations? And what issues are now present that should be avoided, or at the least, be prepared to tackle?
i agree 100%, i'm not even near a good manual curation, but everyday i learn a bit more how to accurate my curation