I have noticed that some Stakeholders are creating new identities on, I think, Github and Steempeak. Will they be able to make more curation payments for themselves by upvoting their own posts with these new identities?
RE: Open Letter to all Steemians - Hardfork 21: Culture Change
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Open Letter to all Steemians - Hardfork 21: Culture Change
The amount someone earns is 100% based on the stake behind the votes, not the number of accounts voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for info.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, they will. Upvoting their own accounts will deliver to them both curation rewards, from the upvoting account, and author rewards. The ratios to each will change, but they will capture all the rewards if they well stake their voting accounts.
They're fitting to game curation based on curation rules that benefit early, large votes best. Stake weighting. In this way they will capture the value of other people upvotes as well.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for confirming what I thought. I suspected that was why they are creating so many accounts even paying for them. Ah well, if you can afford it, make it work for you, I suppose. The accounts are usually operated by voting bots so it's easy money.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Don't be misled by confirmation bias. The information @timcliff gave you is correct and the information @valued-customer gave you is not correct.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Okay, thank you for your info.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So a big fat upvote right after the timer runs out doesn't capture all the curation rewards? I'm sure all the curators and guilds using that principle to gain financial rewards will be surprised to hear it.
I'm not much of a curator, and I could be wrong I suppose. I just upvote what I want to encourage. Doesn't pay much, and it won't after HF21, but that's because real curation isn't undertaken for money.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Voting after the timer only works if there are no/few votes already during the timer. That's generally not the case for well-known content, so if you do have the chance to get in the first vote after the timer, this is lesser-known content for which curation should be more rewarded, but where you are also likely taking a chance on whether the content will get significantly more votes anyway. If it doesn't then you get some curation share from your own vote but it isn't much, relatively speaking.
There is nothing wrong with some people curating for profit and others doing so in a more casual manner. It is exactly the same as anything else in life where some people will devote a lot of effort to optimizing and strategizing and generally get more out of it and others won't.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am sure you will not be surprised that I disagree. There are very good reasons society effects rules intended to prevent selling votes, and other valuable aspects of society.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit