Quote from: Pursuer on December 28, 2016, 07:27:08 AM

Quote from: DApptothefuture on December 28, 2016, 07:13:21 AM

Quote from: Pursuer on December 28, 2016, 07:06:43 AM

-snip-

Makes sense, but what if the model was different? Token holders have to approve authors before they can publish content (consensus approach). This would greatly reduce spam and abuse. Steemit already does a great job for a Reddit type Blockchain platform where anyone can post, but I think there may be space for a curated news DApp if done correctly.

it would lead to centralization again in my opinion because those who are approving the authors have all the power and can deny whatever they don't like which means something can be good and legit but against what those people like.
and then again it is enough to have one account approved to get all your alts approved too and start abuse earning from the system.

as I said steem is doing a similar job and people are abusing it by buying upvotes or whatever the hell it is they are doing there Cheesy

p.s. I don't mean to discourage though. I for one would love to see what you are proposing happen.

I embrace any potential issues/flaws people see. I'd much rather think it through now than run into major issues after something is launched. So for leading to centralised again is that because token distribution could be reduced if a small group decided to buy up a majority? Wouldn't this be the case with all DApp models then? I think having 51% distributed to "non-profit" nodes or those trusted industry-wide could be a solution.