Make tipu game mechanics/ theory even better!

I'm being active as @tipu curator for a few days now. Basically since the beginning. And I really love this new kind of decentralized vote/curation bot/mechanism. It's like the next evolutionary step of bid bots, I truly enjoy it. And think it can also make others enjoy steem more. Curators and authors. And maybe even incentive them to power up some steem! ;)

(CC0 unsplash - chose this cuz one new (black) curation/voting bot under many old (white ones) and chess is one of the most popular games ;) )

It's the first experiment/ project where masses of people can play around with big votes at all. It is gamified and also makes normal / "#oldsteem" bid and voting bots massive competition. Like the worst competition they could have imagined. Who would wanna buy votes if curators like me just throw around with free quite big votes? ;)

But I also had some thoughts on how to make it even better; I wanna share them with you:

The game mechanics incentive to vote on stuff which is likely to always pay out high // "maximize curation"

While I can understand that incentive from a profit and curation rewards point of view... I don't like it from a game theory point of view. We should incentive people to vote stuff which is undervalued and original, instead of already good earning authors. (Also cuz of the tipu vote delay you can't really snipe perfect curation yet..)

For the beginning that's not a big problem. I wouldnt change it straight away cuz with this profit-oriented mechanics we can make normal bid bots bigger competition.. But later on, when the new system already earned some steem and etablished itself, maybe got some new delegations, we should go a different direction, even though it get's more complex and harder to code.

Basically I can just game your game theory by always voting on stuff which is bid botted, nominate sockpuppets, vote on stuff by already very good earning authors or just my own spam. Here is a post and a list about the best earning authors

Which brings me to my next point:

How do we counter abuse?

Everyone can become a curator, even completely new accounts. And everyone can nominate curators. Even their own new accounts to then vote themselves. People can also vote on bid botted stuff, which is against the #newsteem paradigm.

So how do we counter this in a decentralized manner?

I can only think of expanding the current gamification/ game theory/ mechanics: Maybe nominate some "community reviewers", which need a high level/ score and can depending on that also unvote stuff, which abusive curators voted on via @tipu..? A list on the tipu website, displaying recent made upvotes by tipu, would also be very helpful for these people - they could also just use steemd for the beginning.. ;)

People should also have the option/ a command to unvote their tipu vote if they made a mistake.. like voting for abuse.. or like me who didnt understand that we can also split the votes by adding a number (like 0.05) after the @tipu curate command.. ^^ I would have needed an option to unvote and then vote again with a not so big vote.. :D

I'm very interested in your opinions!

Also keep in mind I'm just really hyped right now and don't demand these new features. I'm already freaking happy about this first new evolutionary step and shouldn't ask for too much. Next steps will surely come! ;)

Thanks @cardboard for this great work! :)

/ Jan