I think auto voting is shit, but also understand that some people don't have time to curate manually as I know it takes a lot of time, and even more.

But also. Auto voting under 5 minutes, especially when you have big stake, is a really shitty move.

I am manually curating and the only bad feeling I have about it is when I read a great post and I am not even finished reading, already that post is upvoted.

Early auto voters don't even give time for manual curators to read a post and engage with an author. That is something that needs to change.

I believe manual curators are manually curating more out of love than to get better ROI.

So, the question still remains, how to discentivize auto voting?

What if we treat it as a SPAM? Just like we treat any spam post and comment, why can't we treat auto voting also as a SPAM? I know it would have a negative impact on authors being auto voted, but every new start is rough.

Is there any whale that is willing to downvote posts that are autovoted just like is willing to downvote spam posts? Maybe that could discentivize auto voting just like it did with spamming?

What if we then create a service where manual curators can apply for a bot that gives out curation rewards to people that will delegate their stake to manual curators (Just like communities do nowadays)?

Then we can have stats about every manual curators work that will help people to decide who to delegate to. Then manual curators can compete with eachother.

Can we make 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes to vote on a post? Why is it 5 minutes anyway?

I am just trying to raise more questions and give you a manual curator perspective, and say:

Please, let's not take away curation rewards. It is the only incentive for manual curators.

If manual curators are still appreciated here, let's find better solutions.

Thanks.

Mr. Spacely