If every user started doing this, then there would be no social platform at all. Everyone would collect their 50%(ish) in curation for voting these and no one would actually vote for content. This doesn't sound like a good way to grow the ecosystem. The fact that more whales are now joining this instead of actually looking for quality content is likely terrible for growing the ecosystem. Sure it soaks up a little supply, but at what cost?
RE: Steem experiment: Burn post #359
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Steem experiment: Burn post #359
It is up to stakeholders to decide how to to vote.
If you don't think this is a good use of rewards, I would encourage you to downvote.
Personally I think the burden is on posters to create content which is compelling in its ability to add value to Steem. There is some of that, but also a lot that does not. That's just my own personal view though. Every stakeholder voter can decide for him- or her-self what is best.
The part about curation isn't really true though, because a lot of the votes are before 5 minutes (I see a lot at one minute) so curation gets returned to the pool. The percentage is much lower than 50%.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
About curation, looking at the activity on your burn posts from the other day, that is simply not factual. Many of the largest votes came several hours after those were posted. Though I get what you are saying and why I said 50%(ish), as it will be above or below that number most likely.
While it is up to stakeholders, giving them a way they can (most likely) earn their curation rewards without worrying about the other half going to anyone seems like a great deal for them. Why help anyone else when I can pay myself in effect the entire vote value, with the other portion being burned, meaning I collected all the realized value from that vote.
Again, if everyone starts doing this, the system fails. Perhaps it's not something we should be championing?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The later votes won't do well with curation though (nowhere near 50%) simply because they are late in the stack. I personally vote on them late in order to reduce the Trending effect, but I know i'm giving up a lot of curation rewards by doing this.
I usually see at least $20 of votes within the first minute which means a lot of the curation rewards (on those votes) are being sent back to the pool and later votes are competing for scraps because of how curation works (you only earn good curation if you are one of the earlier voters).
No, that is silly logic. Think of it like dieting, or pretty much anything else. Too much of a good thing can be bad, but that doesn't make the good thing itself bad.
The amount that gets burned is up to stakeholder voters.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit