You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Discontinuing my daily statistics posts
I maybe possible to provide this kind of data every day (plus curation activities!) But I don't believe that a whale will give me over $5000 in a month. (Between 8/19 and 9/18 when @ned began downvoting, these posts obtained around $5500 from the whale with 24 votes) I think this $5500 should have gone to more creative writers and contents providers.
As I explained in another comment, this is misleading and dishonest. My vote on a post alone pays out about $42, and this number is backed by an actual test (I found a random post in New and voted on it, as a test, before removing the vote; in the process I burned about $20 of my voting power, but getting accurate real world data made it perhaps worthwhile). Thus 25 votes would be about $1050, not $5000. The rewards on @masteryoda's posts, including rewards of sometimes $50 or more when I didn't even vote on them are the result of my votes along with many others' votes.
@clayop, please stop lying and trolling about whales' influence. Yes, whales have a lot of influence but when people like you who should know better (and I would argue do know better) distort the facts and constantly approach these issues from a negative perspective it brings down the entire platform. I have not been downvoting your comments consistently even when they are formed on the basis of lies, half-truths, distortions, and negative trolling, but if these continue I will start doing so in the future.
There are ways to work positively to build Steem into a better community, but you, unlike @masteryoda, are choosing a different, decidedly more negative approach that is filled with criticism (even when couched as 'data') and is increasingly bitter. Please reconsider it.
If you intended to give him $50 per post, you could adjust your vote after a post reached to hundreds dollars, or you could skip some following posts to set the average to $50~100 (or whatever you want). But the your actual contribution in the payouts is around $5000 in a month. You had enough options to adjust the degree of the payouts, but you neglected. Now @ned tried to adjust it and you are against his action.
And what am I lying about? I can open my code (although its shamefully dirty) then everyone can run the same analysis. I think the negative perspective is not from these analysis but from some behaviors of some members. If there is no such behaviors, the analysis cannot tell any negative things.
IMHO, @masteryoda now can run his own web service with rewards he obtained so far, and provide the same stats.
I intended to give my vote. The rewards are up to other voters and the system and I don't control them, nor do I have any intention of continually monitoring the rewards of every post I vote on to fine tune a particular reward level. That is absurd.
I do sometimes remove or adjust my vote on a post if I find the overall reward to be excessive and I think I may have done that in one or two cases of @masteryoda's posts (not sure). But in general I did not and do not find the overall rewards he is receiving to be excessive given the positive reception these posts and masteryoda's presentation and presence have in the community and what that suggests about value.
Value is subjective as I'm sure you are aware and I don't necessarily find original novels, poems, etc. to be more valuable than @masteryoda's contributions (and I use that word broadly to encompass the positive presentation and vibe that he brings to Steem). In some cases such original-works posts may be very valuable, but not necessarily. If I tried to write an original novel and posted chapters, my ability to do so would suggest that you should downvote it based on value.
That is a measure of contribution (or elsewhere you call it influence, though in fact it is neither) that you made up and which allocates a composite result of a collaborative voting process over time in a particular, and as it happens, very peculiar manner. In effect, it assumes each voter returns to each post the same instant right before payout and makes an explicit decision whether or not to remove his or her vote independent of the observed or anticipated actions of other voters. That is not how the system normally operates, not how people use it, and it is not reasonable to ever expect this to approximate reality at all.
This is false I have stated several times in this thread that I support @ned taking the action he did based on his perception of the value. I had some disagreement with some of his reasons he shared with me privately but ultimately it is his vote and his choice.
Thank you @smooth for your support of my statistics posts, obviously many people like them and find them valuable as it clearly shows in this post’s comments and your support has a lot to do with them becoming so popular. I apologize for the time you had to spend on this post to explain your point of view, unfortunately some people insist on vilifying me, my posts and people who support them. To those no matter what we say it will not change anything.
You are definitely one of the wisest big stake holders who truly care about this project and its future. Thanks again!
@smooth, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that your vote did worth around $75 or more before. The reason of current $42 worth is that, steem decreased in value and so the account value too. Take the example of Aug 25 2016 when Steem was at 0.0019 (open price) and BTC was at $577 (open price) which means 0.0019 x 577 = 1 USD per STEEM but today, it worth 40 US Cents. So, your vote was worth around $90 before.
Even on 8th september, steem was worth 0.75 USD which means your vote did worth around $75. And I don't know if you meant $42 worth for both of your accounts or single, because your witness account is also powerful.
BTW, I am neutral in this case and just thought to leave my reply as I felt it essential because @clayop is not completely lying, although I don't think $5000 could be correct figure, he said 24 votes which means, he imagined your vote $200 worthy which is nothing but a big mistake or error.
Oh and by the way, I waited for your more replies but I feel like you forgot to check again. Check them out and share your thoughts.
@steemist I can't reply directly to your comment because of nesting. You are of course correct that the value of a solo vote will vary depending on the price of STEEM, level of account voting power (when I did the test I was at about 99%, but in general many of my votes have been made with lower vote power), and other factors such as the level other voting activity that day. My test did include both accounts BTW.
Thanks for taking your time. So, you tested your both account and that's something I wasn't sure about before.
Yes, value of votes also depend on how many people upvoted before you, and if any whale voted before you and you vote after that whale, your vote value will increase automatically.
Clayop, you don't understand how this works. IF we raise the price of steem by building a free, useful network, where votes count, the number of steem dollars issued every day increases. It is not limited, only the number of steem coins produced every day. This is why when steem wen to 3 dollars, there was more than enough to go around. If it went to 500-600 as bitcoin has done, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I think you are tapping on a wrong place. I meant the money could go to more productive contents creators who can increase Steem value more.
No, I'm not. If that's the message, then reward those doing that, instead of penalizing someone who's doing work that is obviously appreciated by the community, who are supposed to be directing the flow of rewards, unless, of course, like voting in presidential politics, that is all a big myth.
My point is that I can provide the same stats as masteryoda's. But I may not get a whales continous support since he probably thinks I am not a friend of him.
True, but I would give it a shot. Since you are not a whale, which masteryoda is, you probably also won't get busted for it!
@markrmorrisjr
I am a kind of whale... a smaller one (but much greater than masteryoda)
Flagging is only for spam, not for over riding how the community sees fit to vote rewards out. It's centralized censorship what @ned is doing, plain and simple.
@smooth is doing exactly the same thing on @dantheman since he thinks paying devs with rewards is not good.
And he also does against attacking people. Here
Sorry I may not have clarified my concern as much as I probably should have. I really have no big concerns with whales that are NOT founders voting however suits their fancy (they invested so whatever they want to do is their business in my opinion). My concern is having one of the primary founders of the network doing the equivalent of putting a community member out of business, EVEN though the community itself decided they wanted them to STAY in business by voting them up. That is the only red flag I see here.
I agree with your point. If you look at curation statistics, curation influence in sum of all devs is only 60% of one whale(smooth)'s influence. (Need to mention that they have five times more SP than him) So I think the current situation is not that serious.
@taoteh1221 IMO, some of here (e.g. jesta or roadscape) easily can provide this service on their website(example) without any additional rewards. It's not a hard job. One just can make a script that generates daily/weekly/monthly stats and posts them automatically. Paying thousands a month for this makes less sense. We can rather pay this money for real original contents creators (such as novel writers).
Interesting. Yeh, it's not that serious overall big picture ATM. I still completely trust @ned as well, I think he has good intention and is not malicious at all of course. It's just a shame somebody is shutting down a highly liked community service because of a mere click or two of a founder. I'm sure everything will work out just fine in the long run. :-)
A team of whales can do the same thing as well. IMHO each individual dev is also a member of this community. They put lots of efforts as like other whales put their money, and obtained the shares. Using their own shares is one's choice.
I understand your point of view. I just see it a bit differently I guess. I hold founders to a higher standard myself, because they are the primary caretakers and creators of the platform. There is a big difference in my mind between a private investor who may only be in it for the money and nothing else, and a founder / caretaker who created and maintains the system. I tend to expect seeing an extra level of caution from founders when interacting with the community.