Maximize Your Curating Income
Some tricks to increase curating income
1. Votes 20+ times everyday
There is a hard coded limit that every vote consumes up to 5% of an account's daily voting power. Voting power recovers linearly in 24 hours. So in order to maximize the use of your voting power, you need to vote for at least 20 times a day, every time with 100% power (default percent in GUI is likely 1%, which means you need to vote 2000 times to use up your daily power).
2. Vote for the posts which have most up-votes already
Reward of a post is weighted by net-positive-votes * net-positive-votes. So it's likely that voting on a post which already has high net-votes will bring you more reward.
3. Never down-voting
If a post has negative votes, it will get no reward, so the curators will get nothing.
The OP has this wrong, do not follow its advice or you will actually minimize your curation rewards rather than maximize them.
Here is my post outlining how to maximize your curation rewards.
I'd argue that it's not totally wrong.
So there's actually no incentive to find quality content and be the first to upvote it, but only to enforce the status-quo? That's bad. Is it by design or by accident?
That is my observation too. I hope this is not going to be the case.
I thought if you were first to upvote you gained more, is that not the case? You were the "curator" (or the original one) so to speak.
//Update:
It turns out that only the 3rd point is correct -- never down-voting.
The 1st point is incorrect due to misunderstanding of some code.
The 2nd point is incorrect due to haven't read the reward splitting code.
By the way, I didn't update OP since it has got some positive votes already. In addition, @dantheman posted another dedicated post to compete with my post and is getting unfair advantage -- instead of posting as a reply to my post, which made it much less benefit for me to update OP. Even if OP got negative voted at last, I'd rather write a new post to correct it.
------- Original post is below -----------
If I understood the code correctly, the first up-vote won't earn more than others. It's all about concentrating powers.
I'm not sure where I read that being first was beneficial, or if I even read it, or if I just inferred that from something I read.
Above is the latest quote I can find concerning curators. I hope dantheman can clear it up for us all. The source to the above quote is here ... https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/how-to-interpret-steemits-post-valuations ... but I'm not really following all of it just yet. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what's being said in that post and whether or not being first has any benefit whatsoever.
Does this mean that it can lead to gaming situation since a post with a higher upvote count will always get more upvotes (other users want to maximise gain from their upvotes) while those posts with lower upvote count would be skipped or ignored (even if their content is better and users originally wanted to upvote based on the better content)?
And in addition the quality / payout is exponential = disproportional
Great post. Thanks for putting it together.
Shameless plug, with
pistonyou use a default of 100% voting power or can specify it manually withpiston upvote @xeroc/piston --weight 50
I think that is not entirely true. From what I know, those that upvote
good posts first get more from their votes than those that upvote an
already upvoted post.
That is quite a shame because it doesn't reward people to "filter" categories by voting misplaced posts out.
Doy ou know the reasons for this?