RE: Why Steem curation reward is needlessly unfair and how to fix it
Hi @killerstorm , this post is really helpful. Do you know if there have been any changes to the curation payout calculations since your analysis and proposal? I am trying to replicate some of the manually, but I'm running into some issues and I'm wondering if it's because the underlying logic has been updated. One issue is that the total_vote_weight
value is not equal to the sum of the individual vote weights. For example, if you look at this random post:
https://steemd.com/steemit/@chitty/if-you-have-the-votes-that-is-all-that-matters
You'll see that the total_vote_weight
value is 17,372,172,123,681,100,000 but the sum of the weights associated with each vote is only 11,883,041,865,956,000,000. So total_vote_weight
is almost 50% higher than the sum of the individual vote weights. The wgt%
values on each vote appear to be using the total_vote_weight
as the denominator, so the sum of all the wgt%
values isn't 100% (as I think is reasonable to expect).
If anyone else votes on that post, or it goes past the 12h payout threshold, the numbers won't line up with this post, but any other <12h old post should have the same pattern.
Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but this is the clearest post that I've found on the mechanics (and issues) with the curation rewards calculations. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!
After typing out that long comment, I've been looking at the numbers some more and think I've figured out the
total_vote_weight
issue. It looks like that total is scaled up by theauthor_curate_amount
so thattotal_vote_weight = (sum of vote weights)/(1 - author_curate_amount)
. Then the numbers seem to work out. Hopefully this comment and reply can save someone else some time.I'm still curious if you know of any changes to the curation calculations since this post ~2 months ago. Thanks again.
Curation reward formula was changed about a month ago, see here: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/changes-to-curation-reward-allocation
It's a bit too thin on details, though.