You don't have to delegate to an auto-vote bot. They can be setup so they just tell your account how to vote. So there's no programmatic way to stop it.

I think it's hard to figure out without experimenting. But my conclusion from the feedback so far is that most people are too fearful of potential downsides to the change to try the experiment. Since it

Make downvotes blind. More people would downvote more because they wouldn't fear as much retaliation. This would be cool, but right now I've haven't seen a good solution for how to do it. Doesn't mean

Another point to consider is if we reduce down the inflation and curation rewards, and HIVE price remain the same? It would be eventually a loss of their investment.Another point to consider is if we reduce

The lending aspect is a difference from Matt's idea and could make it worth the extra effort. I'll need to research it some.

That's probably the best experimental way to do it. But I think political reality will prevent such a solution :-)

How about this: Those who need ROI on their staked hive but don't have an hour to give to it could hire a curator or two. Pay them a small % of the net take and everybody benefits. I'm sure some hungry

The proposed change wouldn't impact author rewards per se. There's a fixed amount of inflation allocated to author rewards, the amount or size of votes don't change this. There's a frequent misunderstanding

I read the "can i get a witness" post a while back, and tagged it for review again later, I recall it had some interesting ideas.

Anyone with a brain could figure out that a difference like that can only exist right now if fewer people are reaping those rewards, given the rewards systems are the same currently. That tends to point

The inflation to bank accounts is what matt is proposing, I think. It's been discussed as an option for a while. The big question is whether a smaller reward for saving versus a higher reward for the near

I feel if we drastically reduce curation we are going to eliminate any incentive to power up. The majority of users already power down and sell as fast as they earn it. Very few will lock up any significant

Yes, it's just more work, and I think its not much different, except it encourages staking just to receive rewards. Some people think that is a good thing, some don't. I'm not a huge fan of staking just

No matter the proposal as long as it all boils down to a system created by codes, people will always find ways to exploit. I love the optimism there :-) As a practical matter, I disagree with such cynicism.

Yeah, that's my conclusion as well :-)

Total author rewards stay the same regardless of your individual voting. Voting just decides on how that fixed amount of rewards are distributed amongst the posts. Curators are being paid to find the

Yes, those are called vote trails. There's no built-in functionality for it, but there are bots for vote-trailing.

Well, we're just going to have to disagree on that, since I think the EIP was a definite improvement. I got really tired of seeing all those people bid-botting boring posts to the top of trending. Content

There's no obvious way to do that, unfortunately.

It would be easy to randomize the timing to make such patterns difficult to identify.