When an account has a high UA value, it means that the account is followed by many other accounts as it has produced good content.
This is not true, i follow lots of people who dont put out good content, imo.
Ive seen nothing out of this effort that doesnt lead me to conclude that it is anything but a funnel from the newbs to the top account holders.
Not voting people that dont delegate, accepting delegations from newbs to vote established accounts, and wrapping yourself in rhetoric of altruism while doing these things leads me to conclude that this effort will go the route of the bid bots.
Scam money out of the newbs until they are finally rejected by a diminished community.
But i am not a newb, and got a good idea of how steem's math works.
Care to rebut my assertions, or will you let them stand?
Either way they will be in the blickchain for anybody that cares to look, in 3, 2,....
Yup.
https://steempeak.com/dregs/@dregs/that-revolving-door
Can you say lol yet?
I just smdh,...
I mean, it's indeed altruistic. The intention here is not the exploitation of newbs
Posted using Partiko Android
No, its not.
They take delegations from newbs that dont know better and vote the established people.
Its a redistribution scam.
From those that dont math to those that do.
According to the numbers, it's often worth even for newbs to invest in it.
They are rewarded proportionally, which involves huge potentials for a good content creator.
Maybe not the biggest ROI on the platform but is a good proportion for value.
If you can't see it then I can't help you. Listen to reason, not emotions
Posted using Partiko Android
Got any graphs of data, or am I supposed to take you word on it?
As you can see, I'm writing from Android - not really in a position which allows me to create colorful charts and stuff. You can check the outgoing votes of @steem-ua on steemworld.org, as well as the data of the posts voted on.
You can compare those with the delegation of the post author, the numbers (in terms of ROI) will speak for themselves.
As for quality, that needs a bigger sample. For that, I'm following @trufflepig, a machine learning bot trained on Steem posts - check out how many of posts highlighted by it are also supported by SteemUA, that should be considered an objective measurement maybe.
Do your own research, I'm just here to spread the word and goodwill (which in turn means that you may take my word on it as well, I consider myself credible in the matter anyway)
Posted using Partiko Android
Using ninjamined stake denies a level playing field to those that arent so favored.
When does ua stop taking a subsidy from my vote?
I will find somebody to do the math, give me a little time.
The project itself would be too weak without delegations. They can't just vote on every single user according to their UA score.
The stronger it is, the more high-UA accounts get. And UA is not directly related to SP.
Correlation of course, is another question
Posted using Partiko Android
Right, so the already favored are getting even more, at the expense of the newbs that don't understand the math.
If somebody makes a profit, ie high ua accounts, then that profit has to have correlating loss associated with it.
Somehow I doubt it is whales giving steem away.
I'll get a better analysis of the math, give me a bit.
Sup bud.
I totally get where you are coming from. IMHO @steem-ua is a far cry from an ideal reputation metric but it's certainly better than what we got with that fake ass number next to people's names.
As robust as the UA system is, it presupposes certain things that both of us reject namely that being an established witness confers trust.
We both know that is a crock of shit because we both have seen at least one top 20 witness doing underhanded proxy bidding of their posts. That sketchy behavior and I wouldn't trust that witness as far as I can throw them.
If UA is to be a real determinant of the trust or integrity of a user, there should be rules to penalize that sort of behavior.
That includes circle jerking. UA doesn't care if witnesses are involved in collusive voting. We know these behaviors speak volumes of the trust of a witness.
For UA to be a more ideal rep metric, it must not put witnesses on a pedestal and hold them to a rigorous standard. As witnesses, they should be held to a higher standard but it seems rather that the lay users are instead.
Unless I see changed on this front, I am doubtful for the future of UA as being as revolutionary as I had hoped it would be...
Full disclaimer: I delegate to @steem-ua at the moment.
Posted using Partiko Android
I think ganging up to increase rewards shows a lack of class.
Picking winners disadvantages all not chosen.
Which is the game we are playing until we start scheming to keep some down for personal reasons.
If they voted 'good' content i would care less, but they vote based on criteria other than a 'good' post.
And yes, we are well aware that reputation, and adulation, dont follow 'good' content, either.
Have you crunched any numbers?
Does it pay for newbs to play their game?
Yeah, damn it. You and your red pills! Lol
Yeah I just saw the post yesterday and would be nice to run a deep analysis. I'm not really sure about the numbers at this time.
It was nice to see that I have a better UA than a few of those vote buying Trenders. I'm just sick of bid bot people having the leg up on me and seeing their smug little faces. Kind of seen this as an equalizer of sorts.
I'm going to need to give this some careful thought. :/
Posted using Partiko Android
I mean, if we have to put up with spoiled rich kids, and their sycophants, in real life, who would join steem just to get more of the same?
As long as the inflation goes to the haves, as it does under linear rewards, why would havenots stick around to watch it?
Let alone invest to watch their money line somebody else's pocket.
Stinc intentionally hobbled us.
At some point a fork us inevitable, if we want steem to thrive.