You're highlighting many of the reasons why I was in support of a linear rewards curve. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way and it was just gamed even more. Yes, the little guys will get very little. It will go back to being more like a lottery as originally designed and as outlined in my post. I do think more of the reward going to curation combined with the ease of downvotes (and hopefully tooling to make content to downvote easier to discover) have the potential to change things up this time. We'll see.
RE: HF21: What Makes Steem Valuable?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
HF21: What Makes Steem Valuable?
It's not really a lottery when there is near-linearity among everything above 16 STEEM. It should be quite different from the original n^2.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for clarifying. I need to go back and re-read the deep dive post on the curve change. I'm not the best at the maths.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have never downvoted anyone. In some cases down voting might be a good option. However I have mostly seen that downvoting is being misused. Like "oh you don't share my opinion, well I will downvote, and if you continue posting the same thing, I will continue downvoting everything you put on Steemit".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yep, that happens, but so does people extracting thousands of dollars by self-voting and voting via sock puppets on completely useless (often spam) content. Just because most people don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's usually done on older posts as comments to avoid being noticed. People complain about low rewards or a low STEEM price, but often they don't understand what causes those things. People extracting value from the Steem rewards pool is a big part of that. At least vengeance based downvotes can be countered with upvotes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I just read this, please tell me this is not true:
Under HF20 a post receiving $1 in upvotes would give the author $0.75.
Under HF21:
So broadly: $0.75 under HF20 vs $0.27 under HF21, a reduction of about two-thirds for smaller payouts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If the $1 vote was a single vote from a single account, then yes, the non-linear curve would give a different result by design. This will hopefully prevent comment farming and self-voting we see which leaves more of the rewards pool for valuable content. If it was a number of votes, then I think you'll begin to approach the same amount as previously. See the deep dive for details and examples: https://steemit.com/steem/@vandeberg/reward-curve-deep-dive
The end result is, yes, I think the author rewards per post will go down. If that's too much of a problem, people may want to try other experiments like https://palnet.io or do what I suggested in my post and hide the $$$ to figure out what motivates you to be here.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for the info!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hey Luke. Does the number of votes matter? Wouldn't it be the same payout irrespective?
Otherwise people would just split up their large accounts into smaller ones, which negates the point of the CLRC change.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The number of stake weighted votes matter, as far as I understand. The stake part is important.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit