1. Original post that sparked my thoughts...

Ok, so I've just read [this](https://steemit.com/steem/@cryptogee/a-solution-to-curator-awads) post by [cryptogee](https://steemit.com/@cryptogee). It was posted last year and received quite a few valuable comments. Let me try to summarize the main idea that was introduced in the post and that seemed to be well-received judging by the community response: _

"In an ecosystem like Facebook, where nobody is rewarded for liking a post, likes are given out as tokens of appreciation. By introducing a cash incentive for voting, we change the nature of the vote. (...) So now the problem is clearly defined, **we want to reward users for doing what they do on Facebook."

_ Ok, so: we want users to do what they do on Facebook. Check. What amazed me though was Cryptogee's proposed solution. His conclusion reads (summarized, but feel free to read the original post): _

"Not all contribution is equal and therefore, rewards for contribution should be similarly unequal. **Sharing is the highest form of contribution**, by recognising this fact and rewarding it accordingly, will encourage the sharing of Steemit articles on multiple social media sites."

_

2. What I feel is missing...

Basically, the original post went from: **_'We want to reward users for doing what they do on Facebook'_** To : **_'We want to reward users for sharing content'_**. While I agree with the latter (rewarding sharing), I do not see how it actually solves the earlier mentioned **voting-problem**.

3. Proposed rephrasing of the question

Given the above mentioned findings, I'd like to rephrase our problem as follows:

_**"How do we create an environment in which votes are still given mainly as a sign of honest appreciation but still carry the possibility of letting the voter earn money?"**_

4. Proposed solution

Five simple rules...

I feel we need a way to judge the seriousness of a users vote. I propose looking at (and weighing in) a users voting history. What about letting the seriousness rise if the user's voting pattern follows 5 simple rules. **1.** The user is regularly seen to cast first votes on popular posts. **2.** The user is rarely seen to cast votes on unpopular posts. (To prevent bots simply voting everything). **3.** The user is regularly seen to vote first on popular posts from unknown / unpopular users. **4.** The user is rarely seen to vote (only) for posts of popular / well-known author(s). **5.** The user is rarely seen to vote for posts of a (few) single author(s). I feel these rules will prevent: - Bots that simply vote for every new post - Users that blindly vote for new posts of already popular users (not related to the actual quality of what is posted) - Users that vote based on friendship (rather then quality appreciation) - The need to reduce vesting STEEM if a (new) user is a frequent voter (see next chapter -> 5)

5. Why the current rules are failing

The current voting rewards can be found [here](https://steem.io/getinvolved/paid-to-curate/). They try to direct users to follow 4 simple rules: 1. Only vote on posts that you believe others will also vote for. 2. Vote as early as possible after the content is posted. 3. Don’t vote on content that is already popular 4. Acquire as much vesting STEEM Power as possible In order to make money curating especially minnows should: 1. Vote on content others haven’t voted for, to maximize the percentage increase in voting 2. Vote on fewer posts, the more you vote the more diluted your STEEM Power. These rules however, still make it attractive to vote for already popular (maybe also befriended) users, even if you do not value the quality. Furthermore, it limits your ability to simply praise multiple works since then you will have to spread your votes thin, causing your vesting steem to diminish. With my proposal (point 4), these problems are no longer relevant.

6. Community Response (see comments)

Would love to hear your thoughts!!