Weekly rewards are meant to support creators who spend their time and energy creating engaging content on Farcaster. 

We've seen some accounts try to trick the algo by coordinating engagement, and redirect rewards towards low effort or uninteresting content. We're making changes to fix this. 

1. The algo will reward diverse weekly engagement. If you get two likes from different people, they'll give you more points than two likes from the same person.

2. The algo may reduce or eliminate points from some accounts based on heuristics (engaging with spammy accounts, only with a particular account, in time patterns that suggest coordination etc) 

These changes will roll out on Tuesday. For more details on how rewards work, see the page below.

https://farcasterhq.notion.site/Farcaster-Creator-Rewards-1f56a6c0c101808f9225c5705ae88fcc

since Pro users are subsidizing Engagement Rewards at the protocol level, when will we have more say on the rewards algo?

Solving public goods value capture. | /impact | book.abundance.id

That doesn't sound very egalitarian to me. Pro is a paid for subscription service and not an option economically for all users.

the pro subscription is def not egalitarian. I don't make the rules tho

There is nothing more powerful in this world than words.

You're arguing that pro subscribers should have more say in how rewards are distributed. That's not egalitarian.

I'm not "advocating for it" tho, just like I was against the Pro model to begin with (eg https://farcaster.xyz/abundance/0xd1f34516)

but as I said, I don't make the rules.

Farcaster currently operates as a monarchy. it makes all the decisions on how the protocol, algos, etc work without the community having any real say in the matter

do you think that is preferable to the decisions being more decentralized? I don't

would an egalitarian approach be preferable? absolutely. is Merkle receptive to that? no

in my view more decentralization is still better than no decentralization

No it's not. Just because pro subscription payments are being used to fund an app wide initiative it doesn't mean they should have a say in who they go to. 

If they are included it creates a situation where people who have the ability to pay for a pro account can create biased influence over those that don't. I'm surprised to hear you advocate for this.

no, I'm arguing that none of us (pro or not) have any real say on the matter

but since Pro accounts are subsidizing the rewards at the protocol level (unlike subscribing to a client) it's incumbent on a protocol to include pro accounts in the governance of said rewards