Part of them You have on Blurt already. These are micro-fees for publishing, marking users who commit flagrant abuses, on the frontend side. Division of the network into communities where group owners and moderators decide themselves who they want to allow to publish in their communities and who not, thus excluding thieves from using their rates.

After all, plagiarism can be checked already at the publishing stage, as YouTube does. Especially since we are building web 3 for all content to be signed with some key of some user. So if in the future they will all be signed, it will not be a problem to create databases containing this content and on this principle, e.g. require providing e.g. a memo key for verification from another platform, from the author if the content has already been written by him somewhere. or simply then, e.g. by posting a link on your profile to your profile here, the system will automatically authenticate.

And many other methods...

But apart from fighting plagiarism, you simply have to build the network in such a way that it is not worth it for anyone to cheat. The problem of post-steem chains is that content earns for a short time, which in a way forces authors to produce large amounts of content if they want to earn. The problem is that everyone has limits on what they can come up with and even the most talented author will burn out. This causes many people to lose enthusiasm for it, but since they have already built a large blog, they want to use it and therefore start to scheme and cheat here ;] The solution to this problem is to create systems that allow the best authors to earn indefinitely as long as their content arouses interest. This means that at least some users, instead of looking for a way to cheat, focus on the quality of the content. It also gives an excuse to pay for advertising, so it creates a source of income for the network.

Since such tools can operate on the basis of the number of views and votes and not the rate, it minimizes the risk of abuse because if, for example, 100 new people vote for some content daily, it is difficult for someone to create 100 accounts daily to beat that. the value of the stake may come from investors who want to allocate their money. Since the tools are unlikely to be susceptible to abuse, you can be sure that a large part of the prize pool will reward popular good authors, but in a way that readers choose, not in a way that some "wathers" has seduced.

Another thing is that you have a built-in sum, although it is poorly made because in such a way as to support abuse, but let's say it is so-so: P I mean the interest rate on HBD in the deposit. If a curator can earn 22-24% APR and a token holder can earn 20% APR on HBD, there is no point in creating a voting circle, especially if there are also micro fees for publishing and performing upvote transactions. Starting a voting circle farm requires creating 10 accounts and dividing the stake, and you still need to configure it all, have the right scripts and know how to do it - a lot of work ;] instead, such a person simply pays the amount to hbd and that's it. simple? simple ;]

Ultimately, there will always be some people who of course bypass frontends, bypass other protections .. the problem is... so what? People have their own minds too. Nobody simply votes for spam and the plagiarist will eventually get into trouble when the real author appears and takes him to court. The wonderful thing about these blockchains is that you can't erase anything and there is immediately proof that he stole in order to gain financial benefits, so such a case is practically won automatically in most civilized countries. You can also prove it after may years so cheater cannot simple use someone's work take the money and disappear. He left traces of his crime and there is always a chance that someone will track him down.

Besides, when the community realizes that someone is stealing, it is enough to show them, there is no need to punish the perpetrator. People themselves stop voting for that person. It is perfectly visible on Blurt. So it is enough for someone to tag such people and they are practically burned for the network. On Blurt it works in most cases, unless, for example, someone flags someone not because they are a plagiarist but because they do not like them and then some people see it and continue to support the given author. On the other hand, the more people on the network, the harder it is to stand out and build a new blog. You can see it on Facebook. There, to be noticed, you have to spend a lot of money on advertising. So before someone rebuilds their profile enough for someone to start upvoting them again, someone will sooner catch them again for being a fraud and a plagiarist and tag them ;]

I have only given you a few methods and I guarantee you that I could write 3 times as many ;]

Ultimately, there will always be a certain margin of fraud but... exactly but... here comes the case that there are also costs of combating abuse. People who do this devote their time and it costs money. After all, many innocent people often suffer as well, and the suffering of one innocent person is not worth saving a few bucks in the reward pool; it is better not to cause suffering and accept that a certain marginal black zone will always exist and that this is the cost of running this business.

Especially if we were to convert the cost of people's work who deal with combating fraud into dollars, it would turn out that the cost is comparable to the losses caused by fraudsters. It is the same with the real world. The state combats the black economy, pretending to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it and creating increasingly idiotic regulations that actually hit 99% of honest citizens. And the black economy still exists. In fact, in some cases, regulations "combating" the black and gray economy essentially help it exist.

Ultimately, tools to combat abuse in any form can be used to abuse and build a black zone of cronyism, etc., among people who have access to them. The more power you give to people who combat abuse, the greater the chance that someone will use it that way. On a scale of 1 to 10, the proposals I'm talking about are tools for 3-4, i.e. a knife or a gun. Downvotes are 8, i.e. ballistic missiles. Above that, there is only unlimited deletion of accounts at will, i.e. nukes ;].

It's nice to have ballistic missiles or nukes, but you know that this involves the need to control the controllers, i.e. again, an additional cost ;] And we all know how it ends. Supervision of the supervisors who supervise the supervisors, and the terrorists will still get a nuke or a ballistic missile somewhere on the side :P

And in most cases, it is really enough to abolish regulations, reduce taxes and let people live, and 99% of society will not steal, will not cheat, will not create illegal things