You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF20 Exploratory Data Analysis on Proposed PayOut Changes
@tcpolymath thank you for the clarification on your concerns and i am very interested in the intentional and unintentional behaviors that will arise. People will try and 'maximize profit ' and find ways to worth within/around the system to do so.
I often early vote and dont worry about curation rewards. I do this because if I like a post, I know I will forget to go back and let lost in other posts and discussions. But I see the funds going back to the rewards pool as a good thing because it gives the possibility of growing the pool at a faster rate. To me, as steemit becomes more mainstream, this could be a big factor for new investors and so only a good thing.
Enjoy making the people you vote on unhappy, then.
This makes zero sense to me. Can you unpack what you're talking about?
@tcpolymath doesn't voting early simply mean that the author gets more and the voter themselves get less? How does that make people unhappy?
That's what it means right now. After HF20 if it goes through as proposed, the author will be capped at 75% and the extra portion will no longer go to the author but be treated as if it was never used at all.
Part of what this means is that an early voter will take a big chunk of the pool of money that goes to curation away from the post. Posts that have no early votes will have 25% of their payout go to curation, while posts with early votes will have less. This will lead later voters to prefer voting on posts with no early votes, and therefore authors will want to make sure their posts don't have any.
where are you getting that? When anyone other than the author votes a post earlier, it still will increase the % of the post payout that goes to the author. The hardfork is talking about removing the incentive to self vote. It is only the curation reward that an author gets currently for self voting before 30 minutes that is going to be returned to the reward pool under the new hardfork.
Ok thanks.
You do understand all this is only for the self voter right? Another user who comes along and upvotes a post earlier is actually helping the author... and this hardfork is not changing that...
This is incorrect. It applies to all of the curation rewards that are currently going to the author, who will now be capped at 75%. See https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/1874
Ah thanks - the blog posting was not worded very well on the steemit blog - it seemed like they were talking about just making it so you don't earn curation from self vote, and returning that specifically to reward pool. Which seems like the best solution - early votes by others (not the author) should still increase the % of total post payout that goes to author, while curation reward from an author's own early self vote should go to reward pool. I still strongly disagree with your proposal to just return all of it to the curation reward pool of the post in question, as that would incentivize other users to vote on posting that has large self votes to get a share of that extra curation $ - we don't want to encourage people to upvote posting that already has huge self votes. That is still incentivizing self voting.
Then bot votes and dummy account votes would still count and the change would be essentially meaningless.
That's not my actual proposal, by the way, it's just one of several simplified methods that would serve better than what they've implemented. Mine is here, and avoids that problem.
all fund in the rewards pool are not used in a day, there is a constant supply being added and taken away. if the rewards pool is not drained so much every day and there is a larger pool, I believe this will have an impact in the future on investors. Investors = ( or should =) better steem price = better for everyone, including the people I vote for and dont vote for.
And no I do not like to see people unhappy.
I'm reasonably certain that the amount of rewards distributed over a given time cannot be changed by how anyone votes. (Outside of the weird edge-case where no posts have any upvotes at all.) "Returned to the pool" doesn't stick more money into it to be spent later, it redistributes that money across the existing votes.