This math is still whack.
My current voting power is 55.35% and still my vote gives a penny.
Now I'm pretty sure that 1500sp does not qualify me for that kind of return.
So, my question is can hf17 adoption by some witnesses allow some blocks to go through with hf17 features?
And, if that is the case, what does that mean for the security of the system?
IF one of you insiders could give some feedback on this, or just anybody with the skillz really, that would make my day!!
And, as always, thanks for your time and attention,...
Have a perfectly peaceful day.
How to win in court for far less!!
Was wondering that for a while too, but it seems unlikely. The Legend levels are probably off duty for a while, so the rest can now divide the reward pool.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Are your votes giving 4 cents?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My votes current give 14 cents... It was 16 cents earlier. That's with 64% voting power of my 32,000 SP.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If I have 1500sp, and you 30,000sp, then your vote should be a multiple of 20 of mine, allowing for rounding, you appear a little shortchanged, you should be up nearer 20? Not a lot, but I don't think rounding corrects it.
Gonna have to get out the calculator,...or call a math major.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No 3, that is due to the linear math I guess, or maybe it is some more then 3, but that is already nice. :-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It falls within the rounding error.
How do you like knowing what the whales had been doing to us?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is part of the experiment, it merely shows what could be considered a flaw in the current reward system. And I guess the only way to get it changed is these Legend levels proving that it works that way. And keep doing it, otherwise the developement team will maybe want to keep it like it is.
If one or more Legend level accounts do decide to upvote, in disagreement with the experiment for example, then the rest will come in to flag that vote to a point that makes it equal to zero. All they do is to balance it out, so the other account levels finally can have a go at the fun of curating again.
The upside of this is that I just could upvote your reply, and you could get 3 cents payout. And you can vote with at least 1 cent, but that will be higher after more votes are given.
In some way that leveling out to zero it is being misunderstood. It does not influence the reward pool, that still stays the same amount. Only are the Legend level account not supposed to upvote, but leave that to all the others.
Steem is still in BETA, experimental fase, now what if the Legend level accounts want to show us that there is a real flaw in the way the reward system works? What if a rogue account buys a lot of Steem to get control of the curation system. Will that one ever stop milking it?
As far as I understand only the Legend level curations will be put down to zero by other Legend level accounts. This means, nothing goes out of the reward pool, by Legend level votes, that stays at zero, neutral, the vote each other to 0.
So, we are in charge, all the other levels decide who gets a part of the reward pool. Therefore I think this image of it being done to us is not doing justice to the experiment and what it wants to proof.
As far as I have seen the effects, and how clever it has been set up, so they only put each others votes to zero, that is smart. Because that way the rest can finally enjoy the fun of curating and actually have a real effect in how the rewards are being divided. Our votes count now!
Although I do disaprove what a lot of Legend level accounts did with a post of Daniel Larimer, but that is another case... But they wasted a lot of voting power for that and that I find ironical.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, I been beating the 'whales are starving us' drum since shortly after I got here and got a grip on the math.
I sure like it better, hopefully the data continues to support it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thumbs up for that and in the meantime we can enjoy the current situation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit