I have to admit, I'm one of those minnows you mentioned, so perhaps I'm already inclined to agree with propositions from someone of greater expertise. That said, I appreciate the evident intent behind your proposed changes the rules of reaching a point of optimal benefit to all users, especially if individuals can help Steemit reach that point through choices made which also yield their maximum personal benefit. (This is how I understood your article through point 9.) Maybe I'm asking too much, but I am curious to learn: in #15, why does a decreased aversge payout imply an increased overall user engagement?
RE: Ideas for Future Rule Changes - Voting, Earnings, Maximum Social Benefits - a Discussion Document
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ideas for Future Rule Changes - Voting, Earnings, Maximum Social Benefits - a Discussion Document
Hi, re #15, it isn't the drop in rewards but the increase in number of votes at near 100% power that is the issue. recently @timcliff wrote a good article (and he commented above too) showing that people can still vote as they please but end up operating at a lower average voting power. Strikes me as a perception problem now - we can juggle the percentage drop per vote and the rshares generated so as to produce the same overall rewards in dollars. I am ready to concede #15 if more people understand that they do not need to operate near 100% in order to be effective voters and commenters.
Re #9, yes, you're right. I expanded upon this in this recent article: https://steemit.com/steemit-help/@rycharde/predator-prey-equations-and-the-steemit-ecosystem
Thanks for your comments. upvoted comment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit