If work is voted on to be rewarded it means that holders with the most votes have the biggest say about getting a reward. Lets say a whale makes a poor contribution. A holder with $100 worth of One, who is a small fish makes a brilliant contribution. The whale then votes for his own poor contribution and wins and therefore gets the reward. How will you ensure that quality gets rewarded and not just whoever got the most votes?
Have a look at the whitepaper. Whales are part of the "oligarch" group, which have the right to determine the valuation of the group. "Meritocrats" have the right to determine which work is worth valuing. So, if the work is low quality, then the whale can't even boost its value.
Also, the "democrat" group, which is the mass holding $100 in ONE, can collaborate to overturn any decision made by the Meritocrats or Oligarchs. It's in balance. Also, there's a sharp greed index at play and it takes into account when a whale is being unfair. This penalizes whales who do not act in the best interest of the ecosystem's growth.
If work is voted on to be rewarded it means that holders with the most votes have the biggest say about getting a reward. Lets say a whale makes a poor contribution. A holder with $100 worth of One, who is a small fish makes a brilliant contribution. The whale then votes for his own poor contribution and wins and therefore gets the reward. How will you ensure that quality gets rewarded and not just whoever got the most votes?
if like that it will be very difficult and from the beginning I noticed I thought it was like a bounty or something else every day we just need to tweet and retweet then there will be income apparently that's not how it works, for me it will be very difficult
It's not a bounty and it never will be a bounty.
This is supposed to be decentralized sourcing of human capital for true value-adding work. The token dilution (via rewards) must be compensated for through ecosystem growth drawn from the work that is being rewarded.
