Voting power that just keeps building indefinitely would be interesting.
Why is there a 100% voting power cap?
6 years ago by etherpunk (75)
$10.90
- Past Payouts $10.90
- - Author $8.31
- - Curators $2.59
59 votes
- + tombstone: $4.961 (40%)
- + kevinwong: $4.594 (100%)
- + kasho: $0.447 (100%)
- + lawrenceho: $0.214 (100%)
- + lawrenceho84: $0.147 (100%)
- + penguinpablo: $0.079 (6%)
- + predictionbot: $0.078 (100%)
- + norbu: $0.039 (50%)
- + sambillingham: $0.026 (100%)
- + killuminatic: $0.025 (100%)
- + atom-jp: $0.022 (100%)
- + joannewong: $0.022 (50%)
- + voronoi: $0.020 (50%)
- + theywillkillyou: $0.017 (50%)
- + arconite: $0.017 (50%)
- + calatorulmiop: $0.015 (50%)
- + qsounds: $0.015 (100%)
- + simonpang: $0.014 (100%)
- + eforucom: $0.012 (1%)
- + vinayakgupta: $0.012 (100%)
- … and 39 more
I think it is because if there wasn't a cap, then people who save it up and then suddenly start voting are basically all-powerful. especially if they have lots of steem power. So the people that manage the blockchain regulate that to grat a sort of equality... maybe?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hmm I was thinking that those who always hit 100% for long periods of time have their votes been “taken away” from them by those that keep voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So the cap also encourages people to interact more (or vote with higher percentages) in order for their votes not to be wasted.
Imagine how massive utopian io (for example) would be if they planned their voting in a way where they gained up to 10% more voting power every day. Their vote would be larger so they wouldn't need to vote as much to give out the same value which leads to exponential growth. Then they'd be profiting off all the curation from these extra percents as well. We'd end up with massive accounts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit