You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A nice example of one of Steemit's problems (edited)
You may be right. The problem goes deeper than just empty posts like this, though; it's also about the distribution. Posts with 200+ votes making under $1,- are hard to explain to new users when they see noise or even equally good posts make a lot more, with under 20 votes. The gap is too wide and doesn't seem to be closing at all.
Do you know of any numbers to support this? Paper napkin theory math says whales need to gather upvotes worth 10% of their SP to maintain their voting power, which seems like it would be a force that dissipates voting rewards
I have compared the tables at http://steemwhales.com/ over time for a while to get an idea of the development of voting power as distributed in the population, and concluded that you still need at least one whale vote to equal about 150 to 200 average votes (excl. whales). The numbers are off the top of my head, as I buggered up the spreadsheet a week ago and couldn't be bothered to repeat the exercise.
I'm not concerned about current distribution, only about centralization vs diffusion effects that the voting system has. Has the power of the top 10 or 100 voters been trending down or up? How about average value at 20,000th voter?