Steemit sets a precedent for a similar method for insuring distribution is fair, as was planned for JAMBOX even before I read this:
Rate Limited Voting
A major part of minimizing abuse is the rate-limiting of voting. Individual users can only
read and evaluate so many work items per day. Any attempt to vote more frequently than
this is a sign of automation and potential abuse. Through rate limiting, stakeholders who
vote more frequently have each vote count for less than stakeholders who vote less
frequently. Attempts to divide tokens among multiple accounts also divides influence and
therefore does not result in a net increase in influence nor bypass the rate-limit imposed on
voting.
But note JAMBOX will not use voting nor any centralized means of
initial (i.e. issuance) distribution. The rate limiting will be applied differently.
Note
I disagree with the economic design of Steemit.
Instead if users want to vote to send money to content creators, then let them pay minute microtransactions for each up vote. Steemit's collectivism instead encourages
stealing allocating from the collective to pay for it. The payment for voting can be entirely opt-in, as it can be tied to priorities that users assign to content they are viewing. More details later...
The concept of a globally tracked/enforced reputation metric is to me an anathema and the antithesis of decentralization. This is another difference in the design of JAMBOX and Synereo as well.
I think I summarized best recently the difference in my thought process about decentralization when I compared The DAO to DVCS open source:
- ... Decentralized version control open source (DVCS) solves this discord to obtain resonance by allowing every participant to have their own perspective on changesets. DAO is entirely wrong model for decentralized production. It fights against everything we learned with decentralized open source development, which is that the individual should be empowered to act independently.
Whereas, Steemit lumps everyone into the same boat and tracks it all on a block chain and forces everyone into the same protocol. I have much generalized vision, where every individual can run their own choice of protocol, GUI, rules, etc..
Synereo is somewhat closer to my vision, but they also tack on systemic relevance to the reputation system.