You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Daily SBD Distribution - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:39:12 GMT
right ... its been nine days since you paid .. did something change ?
i said i was gonna give you a vote daily since you gave me the idea but votes for nothing won't do i'm afraid , maybe there's a glitch in your system but in the meantime i'll stop voting , i just checked
its been nine days since last payment, your rules havent changed, my vote is 100/100 and i get nothing, so i guess that ends the deal until clarified
Each time a distribution is processed the bot sends a transaction to itself that looks like this:
dpr daily-sbd-distribution-6-13-2018-21-39-120After that the payouts should occur. If however the average SBD per voter is less than 0.001 it can't do the transactions since 0.001 is the minimum.
This will show as another transaction looking like this:
Distribution amount per voter is less than 0.001 SBD for daily-sbd-distribution-6-13-2018-21-39-120.Recently this has happened more often. Looking at the voters it seems that there are a lot low percentage votes. Meaning that someone would vote 1% and contribute almost nothing but still is eligible for the distribution.
I'll be looking into that for possible solutions. I'm thinking of ignoring those who don't vote 100% and aren't meeting a certain threshold.
I've made the following changes to the distribution:
You can read about them in the new SBD Distribution posts. This change will come into effect starting with the next SBD Distribution payout.
yes well you get a lot of leeches on systems like this
it's inevitable since you can't set a maximum number of votes on a post, ive been wondering about it myself and i try not to promote it , i think you'll find if you only elect 100% votes all the autovotes will probably be declined payment and it might be a lot more realistic :) , its a big problem that there's no way to stop a post from being voted on after a certain number ... i'll keep voting for another week and see what it gets, right :)
i seriously appreciate the reply ... would have been better if you put a note in it the moment that happened i guess but fine ... its just nine votes turned to nothing
thanks again for replying
i have another one running @sakhmet where one-takes-all (well, 90% ... i get about the same amount of votes as i get on @ubasti but mind you i never promoted it because i saw sh-t like this happening if it grows too fast) the sp i get there is about the same or slightly more than i get for @ubasti, people seem happy when they win a larger amount and it will never fail to payout but i want @ubasti to continue too, ive been thinking about systems in case i get below 0.001, the most fair seems to either put in front the "regulars" who give full votes or simply discard the ones with zero shares in the payout (or next to), i keep an 0.500sbd pool which means i can payout 500 people 0.001 in case it ever goes below that but i'm not fully automated, the textbody is generated, the payments are done in a batchscript that gets the accountnames from an inputfile generated by another one but i still do the passphrase manually, i get about 30 payments done in 1.5 minutes like that and the upvotes come from a batchscript too, gets input from in inputfile the same way, but i do it all in linux shell scripting with just steempy CLI wallet, im too paranoid to run a 24/7 open system
i just wanna share because i hope you dont think im competition. Ive been looking around for distros and theres barely any, or any who pay at all so i'm sure there's always plankton votes like that.
In the spirit of open-source communities lol, that's how i run it for now, and i will probably open a second raffle soon but i want it slightly different from the ALL41
you can drop message on the discord if you like to discuss how to improve the system but as long as its mutual self intrest, right ? no competition , i dont want that, there's enough for everyone the discord is somewhere in the text body of this of @sakhmet
ANYWAY, have a nice weekend and lets not get poorer together here :p
Now strictly speaking the people who voted with low weight didn't do anything wrong. It is a valid choice to make. And now that they won't receive a future payout with this strategy the problem is fixed. They can adjust their strategies so that they vote the minimum required amount and that's fine.
And about the note you spoke of: This wasn't a bug or an exceptionality. People could choose the voting percentage as they like from the beginning. This was how the system worked until now. And now it has changed and hopefully for the better.