RE: Delegation Removal ~ Top20 Witness Voting

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Delegation Removal ~ Top20 Witness Voting

in blurtdevelopment •  2 months ago 

A whale can always support a curation account by using a vote trail.
The problem is that upvu will hurt blurt. Take a look at trending and you will see a lot korean copy/paste posts. Give it more time and trending will look the same as steems trending.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  

Is it not possible to remove accounts such as upvu that do not have a source but support any kind of contents cause people pay for it.

Lets say blurt Africa is a community account and has an active community that needs support but upvu doesn't which gives opening to those people who plagiarize, so I will suggest they give upvu a limitation or something to make people avoid it

Best way to fight it is for everyone to grow bigger in Blurt Power and vote for other good content, DPoS was meant to be a battle of votes, with the biggest stake directing the content, this demand for Blurt Power is what makes the price go up.

Too mich staking can be detrimental too if hodled for too long as a community. It will cause the price to plummet due to demand of liquidity. on the otherhand, if timed correctly It can give a chance to onboard new people at a cheap price. The issue is how big of a shock it will create... risky risky. but are the gains worth it?

its nice to hodle the stake individually but sometimes we have to know when to power down accordingly.

If for example everyone gets a bigger stake that means that upvu also gets a bigger delegation and nothing changes. ppl delegating to upvu just want to squeeze the money out of the blockchain at least the big stakeholders. Watching upvu on steem is kind of a possible future for upvu on blurt and that vision is veeeery bad for us. Easy money attracts bigger stakes. If there is no way of stopping it then other big stakeholders who fought against it will surrender and use it too. The bigger upvu gets the harder it is to be stopped. Give it a bit more time and the account can vote for more than 2000blurt.

Hi, I believe we have slowed it down, we have blocked delegations to it at wallet level, which acts as user education. I had a brief idea, what if it was possible for witnesses to target a specific account with high fees for specific actions, like if the account votes for stolen and PLG content often we tax their voting more, increase the fees many times higher so they are burning more blurt and not worth it to curate such content, almost like a sin tax, just not sure how easy that is to implement. Maybe it shouldn't be witnesses, maybe it should be a set of sentries/admin that post a custom json and if 66% of them agree via custom json attestation then the fees increase will come into effect, maybe with a 30 day cooldown reducing back to normal.

exactly, we have a more preceding problem and that is fighting abuse. primarily spam and plagiarism.

PLG is however a problem, please shouldn't be rewarded for stealing content. We are open to public suggestions on how to deal with this.

Talking about dealing with spam can't the blurt developers create something like cheetah or perhaps we could have an anti PLG department to scout for plagiarized contents.

Another thing is that people don't post interesting things neither do they post quality contents and that also should be controlled