Holy moly, this was two and a half months ago.😮

No - it feels a bit "spammy" and perhaps overkill. I think that once you get the algorithm right, then it probably wouldn't be necessary anyway.

Check my reasoning here. I'm rethinking this.

1. If I want to maximize returns for delegators, I need to post or comment 10 times per day. (remember that the fundamental goal is to create a mechanism that can reduce overall spam levels by outcompeting the content-indifferent voting services)
2. If I post 10 times a day, that's covering up to 50 authors per day, and it's showing up in feeds 10 times a day. Finding 50 higher-quality posts per day can be challenging.
3. If I post 2 times per day and create 1 reply per (included) post (i.e. up to 10 replies per day total), that's covering up to 10 authors per day, and it's only showing up in feeds twice. Additionally, it lets follow-up voters decide whether to direct rewards to all of the original posts or just to target the best.
4. If I post 2 times per day with 5 replies each, one bad apple can't spoil the bunch, because follow-up voters can still reward individual selections, even if one of the included posts was a bad pick.
5. Follow-up voters are more likely to engage with 10 included posts than 50.
6. With 10 posts per day, I can direct beneficiary rewards to a max of 20 delegators per day (assuming 5 included authors per post).
7. With 2 posts and 10 replies per day, I can direct beneficiary rewards to a max of 64 delegators per day (2 per top-level post, and 6 per reply).
8. Eventually, if a machine-learning capability will be added, it will be useful to have individualized performance information from each included post.
9. At current limits, free LLMs can support evaluations for 2 posts/10 authors per day. 10 posts/50 authors would almost certainly require a paid LLM.

Hence, 2 posts per day with 5 replies each would be the least spammy, and probably, the preferred solution.