You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Reward Pool Rape: Downside of Steem Blockchain innovate nature Or Abuse of Free will?
If nobody was voting for those 100k articles you'd have a lot of disappointed users. Trying to displace the ever increasing and determined haijin is a nice idea but why would that affect the reward pool rape? He's got much more shares in ONE VOTE, one ONE POST than all those 10 people. How could you realistically keep up without flagging?
It is simple...he only has the 10 votes...unless he wants to do more and cute down the voting weight on each post. Either way he is maxed at 10 per 24 hours (at 100%).
If those downvoting starting posting, especially the heavy hitters, their author rewards would dilute the reward pool, taking away from Haejin. The reward pool is what it is on a daily basis....the only variables are the number of posts and the voting power that was voted.
If the number of articles suddenly went from 70K a day to 210K a day, this would dilute the reward pool by spreading the payouts over the other articles. A tripling of the articles, especially with heavy SP people posting, would overwhelm him. He simply cannot ramp up to keep pace.
It is akin to the stats I have posted for the last month talking about the power of the whales and orcas decreasing. For the past 120 days (the time I looked at) the few with the big SP are simply losing power as a percentage of the whole. This is because all the new people posting who are taking a little here and a little there. One or two means nothing. But when 10,000 people are doing it, it starts to add up.
Author rewards are 75% of the reward pool....posting is the quickest way to dilute it...especially from one person.
No it wouldn't because there would be 100000 posts that are worth 0 shares. The power is still being voted on only a few posts.
Okay if you say so.
How would 100K post be worth 0 shares?
Because you got 100k that are 0 votes.
Not if everyone used their 20% daily voting power.....
And I am not sure 40% of the posts on here get 0 votes.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Even 100K at .01 would be 1000 which would offset the single offender a great deal.
rancherorelaxo has 1.3M SP. A new account has .5sp and 15 delegated, so about 16 sp. 10000 users couldn't negate the content if they flagged directly. Math.
First off it is 100K and I didnt only say for new users to post...it is for the other whales to do it also.
But it is okay..ignore the evidence of what expansion of the number of posts has done to the distribution of power over the last year.
It doesn't matter if they post 10000 times each day. They only have so many shares, I assumed 10000 new users and if they all flagged they wouldn't do 10% damage to the payout, and that's if 10000 new users. If they created content and voted on it, the pool for everyone would dilute, it wouldn't make the reward pool rape go away at all, it would only mean that theres even less rewards to go around. There is no evidence that the distribution of power is because of new users or simply because some power from the whales go distributed to other accounts, and it would be very inconclusive to attest that it is OTHERWISE, especially considering the rewards the whales earn from curation, let alone the countless schemes for vote sharing.
If those 10000 people voted on other things it wouldn't do 1% the damage that flagging would do, but then nobody would get rewards and it's pretty lame to hold 10000 people to be responsible for not even 10 percent of the voting power of one user.
What 0.01 rewards? If the SBD payout is < 0.02 you get zilch as an author or curator. It gets zeroed out. I have had lots of posts with ranges of like 0.004 to 0.019 all get zeroed out when 7 days is up. And the fact the site half rounds up the reward display is also discouraging because it will show 0.02 for a 0.015 post, which then gets zeroed out after 7 days. Very bad psychologically for minnows and plankton. Especially when the 0.02 display (which looks like it is at payout threshold) for a 0.019 payout turns into 0.00.