Who dishes out the most in payouts on the Blurt blockchain? I have calculated the top 20 Blurt accounts ranked by how much BLURT they allocate to content with their votes. Since half of all payouts go back to the curators, this is also a list of the top 20 earners of curation rewards.
How it was calculated
Since there is no published data on this, I used the tool created by @ecosynthesizer / @eastmaels to sort all Blurt accounts by BP. Then I went through the top 150 or so, and found the top 80 in "Vote Weight", which is their Blurt Power plus delegated BP coming in minus delegated BP going out.
VW = BP + delegations in - delegations out
Then I removed any that are obviously bots, like @Blurtbooster, @CTime, and @Primeradue. There's nothing necessarily wrong with bots, but they are not manual curators. This took about 5 off the list. (If you know of any on my final list that are bots, please let me know and I'll remove them.)
Then I removed any that have not curated within the past 3 days. This took dozens off the list. Some have never even logged in to Blurt. Others have some degree of activity here, but just aren't curating regularly.
Next, I noted each account's current voting power at 2 times today, separated by 8 hours, and found the average of those 2 numbers. For example, if the VP was 90% at noon and 96% in the evening, their average VP was recorded as 93%.
Finally, to rank each account by how much BLURT they're allocating to content (and likewise, earning in curation rewards), I multiplied its Vote Weight by its average Voting Power. (For more information on how Voting Power affects the size of your votes, see my recent article The Timing of Curation.
Raw data
The following is some raw data to show my calculations, and is not the final list. At this point, the accounts are ranked by VW.
mmmmkkkk311 - 5101k VW - 55% 53% = 2754
saboin - 3100k VW - 99% 98% = 3054
mariuszkarowski - 2793k VW - 58% 55% = 1578
leifasaur - 2488k VW - 89% 95% = 2289
sagarkothari88 - 2095k VW - 89% 89% = 1865
ecosynthesizer - 1957k VW - 87% 91% = 1742
tomoyan - 1864k VW - 83% 85% = 1566
blurtlatam - 1843k VW - 80% 86% = 1530
curationcoconut - 1757k VW - 81% 87% = 1476
blurtpower - 1729k VW - 99% 86% = 1599
mk-sports-token - 1380k VW - 59% 55% = 787
lebin - 1366k VW - 100% 100% = 1366
rycharde - 1319k VW - 87% 90% = 1167
opidia - 1243k VW - 60% 67% = 789
outofthematrix - 1160k VW - 68% 75% = 829
r2cornell - 1118k VW - 91% 98% = 1051
r2cornell-curate - 1095k VW - 99% 88% = 1024
drutter - 1067k VW - 99% 99% = 1056
dsc-r2cornell - 1067k VW - 93% 99% = 1024
shadflyfilms - 920k VW - 91% 97% = 865
beblurt - 912k VW - 93% 99% = 876
kryptodenno - 910k VW - 92% 99% = 869
randula - 905k VW - 86% 91% = 801
Final Results
After adjusting for Voting Power (average over 2 data points), here are the 20 accounts handing out (and earning) the most rewards:
- @saboin
- @mmmmkkkk311
- @leifasaur
- @sagarkothari88
- @ecosynthesizer
- @blurtpower
- @mariuszkarowski
- @tomoyan
- @blurtlatam
- @curationcoconut
- @lebin
- @rycharde
- @drutter
- @r2cornell
- @r2cornell-curate
- @dsc-r2cornell
- @beblurt
- @kryptodenno
- @shadflyfilms
- @outofthematrix
As of today, March 2nd 2023, those are the 20 accounts manually drawing the largest amounts from the reward pool.
Removing any accounts that primarily vote for themselves and/or a closed group ("farmers" and "circle jerkers"), we can list the 10 biggest manual organic curators of Blurt:
- mmmmkkkk311
- leifasaur
- ecosynthesizer
- blurtpower
- mariuszkarowski
- tomoyan
- blurtlatam
- curationcoconut
- drutter
- r2cornell
A note on MK: With his 3 accounts (@mmmmkkkk311, @mariuszkarowski, and @mk-sports-token), despite currently only running at about 54% efficiency, he is the undisputed biggest manual curator on Blurt. Imagine if he was able to keep his VP up near 100%? He would be pulling in almost twice the curation rewards, and handing out almost twice the payouts for content-creators! Even so, he should be applauded for his significant contribution to the platform, and for curating manually.
Personally, I am honoured to appear on a list with such all-stars of manual voting. As I said in The Timing of Curation a few days ago, without curation, there are no payouts on this blockchain. No curation, no Blurt! So these people are not only Blurt's investors, they are the ones keeping the platform running, the ones drawing in and maintaining content-creators, the ones giving the BLURT token value.
While on the topic, I would like to thank @world-travel-pro for recently delegating me 300,000 BP for the month of March! As I told him, I intend to make the most of it, and continue to carefully vote with my combined 1,067,400 BP! This will help boost me toward my goal of 1 million BLURT by the end of 2023. Thanks WTP!!
I hope you found this useful and interesting. Now go out there and create high-quality original content, and hope you're visited by the above excellent curators!
DRutter
Many times I try to make a comment where everyone who reads is happy, :) but... When you can't, you can't, lol.
As some will have noticed, for others, (I will probably be invisible forever it doesn't affect me at all) I work with the curation team of two accounts: ecosithetizer, named above, and newvisionlife, a small account that aims to grow organically , thanks to manual and careful voting; well, both accounts have rules that I must follow to do this job as well as possible.
However, I have found upvoted posts (I prefer to believe that they are automated by a bot) that vote for content that is empty, and they are just a bunch of nonsense words, but by accumulating many of these words, they can obtain important votes from these accounts.
So the main point would be what content is being voted on?
As we well know, quality is something that has a totally different meaning for two people: For some, it is a long article, and for others, it is a simple meme. It would be interesting to know (this is definitely quite hard work) of the accounts that get upvoted, which of them actually have interaction with other users by receiving comments? Because we well know that many accounts are only for accumulating coins that are later transferred to other users, and from there they are transferred back to the creator of all these accounts to be settled in the market, keeping the price low (I think it still I am not wrong in my analysis).
Receiving delegations is not so frequent, since the only way to verify that a good job will be done with that delegation is through continuous work on the platform, and that, my dear friend, you have demonstrated.
Congratulations, you will reach your goal ahead of time :)
I agree, there are many accounts here simply farming rewards. They put in very little effort, and provide nothing of value to anyone else. They get very few comments (or none). Sometimes they get upvotes from themselves (we call that farming), or other accounts they have an agreement with (we call that circle-jerking). Sometimes they get upvotes from bots like CTime, but generally CTIme identifies these accounts and removes them from the list, or gives them only a tiny upvote. As for Blurtbooster, this used to be a big problem, and I spoke against it several times. Recently, it has become somewhat manually controlled, so these spamming accounts do not get votes from the Blurtbooster bot anymore. We, the manual curators of Blurt, can do our part by not voting for accounts using these tactics.
Many think differently from us, but the world is too big to accommodate different ways of thinking. I'm glad you agree with me. On the other hand, I am very happy that the ctime vote has already reached 95% in your publications because the content you create is for thinking and analyzing and not just to fill a space and get votes; I still don't qualify for that vote, (barely worthy of 0.74%) lol, but I'm still working on improving every day, doing better curation with the accounts I have access to. As for quality, it is a very diverse topic in the mind of each one; For those of us who like to think and have critically thinking, quality publications are those where it is necessary to spend a few minutes to ask a question or a comment, for others, a simple photo that they like without any message is considered a good publication.
Can we agree on this point one day?
As for Blurt, does it benefit you from having low-effort posts?
Some information and advice about CTime, since you asked...
CTime is a bot, and at least for now does not employ DI (digital intelligence), so it does not judge the subjective nature of your content. It doesn't know if the images you post are professional photos of exciting places, or cheap snapshots of weeds growing in the yard, or just simple titles made with MS Paint (like my thumbnail image for this post). It doesn't know if your text is spelled correctly, or if your points make sense, or if your topic is interesting and important. What it does know is the amount of text your post contains, and the number of images you included. It uses that to help determine what % vote to give. Usually it votes at about 10 to 20 minutes after the post is made (whereas Blurtbooster upvotes at exactly 5 minutes after the post is made).
CTime is also controlled by a human. I don't know who it is, but they are definitely part of the process. The voting is all done automatically, but the parameters are set by the human. The human can blacklist certain accounts, meaning they never get votes. He can also whitelist accounts, meaning they always get votes. My guess is that at some point, the owner of CTime read some of my posts, liked what he saw, and put me on the whitelist. It appears my wife @MediKatie was also added to the list at some point, because when she does posts (usually only every 2 weeks or so), she gets the 95% vote, as long as her post is not too short, and then it goes down to 89%, or 70%, etc.
I believe I remember seeing comments by CTime, many months ago, speaking against Megadrive and the other owners/"Foundation" of Blurt. I don't think he is a supporter of the main front end "blurt.blog". I have noticed when my posts contain links to blurt.blog content, I get a much smaller upvote, such as 20% or 10%. Perhaps (this is a guess), the owner of CTime added a condition to the automatic upvotes, reducing the vote size if it contains the text "blurt.blog". A couple weeks ago I was experimenting with different frontends, and when I linked to blurtlatam, the CTime upvotes were larger. When I linked to blurt.blog, they were smaller. I'm not 100% certain, I am just noticing patterns, but you might want to try changing the links in your posts.
My content is the most important thing to me. I am creating content to get my message out, not to make money. Earning votes is secondary for me, by far. That doesn't mean I want to avoid getting votes or earning BLURT, so I do what I can to make that happen. But my content will always be first for me. I like to vote for other creators here that think and act the same way - not to get votes, but to contribute real content they made themselves, that is interesting, pleasant, artistic, important, or useful in some way. I do my best to avoid voting on content that seems to be created only to attract votes, or by creators who mostly upvote themselves, or in an arrangement with a circle of collaborators.
Keep up the great work!
Thank you very much for this message, and for all the information you provide me. Despite being on content platforms since 2016 (I started on steemit) I don't know too much about how a bot works, who is real or not, etc.
I have read many comments and short posts from ctime (or better said, from the person who controls the bot) where, at the time, there was an all-out war with really strong attacks based on establishing rules that were more popular. Just now, I have gone back to review those writings to make sure that I write with base.
When Blurt started, ctime was one of the proponents of preventing spam and abuse, and at the time it worked because it removed those who had this malpractice from their bot; Now it seems to check very little (if at all).
I have tried all the interfaces in Blurt, including the ones that are no longer there, looking for one that gives me the variables I want (blurtlatam was the one I stayed with) but after leaving it I started my search again, finding that they were too slow for me, and I've been testing beblurt lately, and although it lacks many updates, I use it to contribute somehow with the 3% fee that it charges with those improvements.
Definitely, many do not agree with the main interface, due to its mute button; In my opinion, I think it's a defense mechanism that I can use when I don't want to see someone's comments, and many uses this right (I've never used it). I don't see it bad. However, there must be something else I don't know about that makes other users (whether they have large accounts or not) reject this interface, even though it is the fastest.
Like you, I believe that the content is much more important than the votes themselves, as this helps make Blurt truly a content platform, and not just a blurry photo found on the side of a dusty road. (a different form of your explanation, lol) and of these posts, I've seen way too many in my work as a small curator.
Hopefully, a space will be opened where those of us who are on foot looking for content to curate can talk with the largest voting accounts in order to propose or dismantle fictitious accounts, spam accounts, or accounts that are abusing and creating bad content for Blurt; Bad not because he writes little, but because there is nothing creative in his writings.
Thank you very much for taking the time to write details that teach me and help me understand how things work in Blurt.
I really appreciate this.
You're welcome Ray. I hope the info about CTime's curation tactics is able to help you.
One thing about "mute"...
The mute button, which as you know has also been available on Steem and Hive since the beginning, is a very valuable tool. This is how we reduce the amount of spam we see. Many accounts here are created just to spam posts or comments in an effort to earn votes, or spread a political agenda, or link to other sites (such as porn, gambling, etc). We can't downvote on Blurt, so the mute feature is our best way of dealing with these accounts. They are not notified they have been muted by you, and it does not affect their experience at all. It is not rude, nor aggressive, nor is it censorship of any sort. I encourage you to use this feature, as I do all the time. And yes, it can even be used to stop you from having to see someone who is a problem for you, such as someone who has been annoying you and never providing you with anything worth reading, or somebody who posts porn you don't want to see, or somebody who makes you uncomfortable, upset, angry, etc. You have the right to not be impacted by them, if you choose. It only affects your Blurt experience, not theirs.
This feature should probably not be called "mute", because mute means silence. It does not silence them, it only stops you from having to see them.
But there is another feature, unique to blurt.blog, called "self sovereign blogs", which is a silly name. What it does is stops the target account from ever being able to post on your content. They can't post on that post, nor any of your past posts, nor any of your future posts. Which means they can't communicate with you on your blog, or reply to anyone else who comments on your blog. This is truly a "mute" feature, and is actual censorship. It was done by Megadrive and the other owners, so they can stop certain people from giving their opinion on important community discussions. That's why a lot of people are against blurt.blog (perhaps that is specifically why CTime has boycotted them). I hate censorship, and that's what that feature does, it censors people because it actually stops them from being able to leave comments.
To make matters more complicated, the "self sovereign blog" concept was nicknamed "mute" by Megadrive and the other Blurt owners. It is definitely unrelated to the mute button, which doesn't do anything like that. Real muting is part of the blockchain, supported by all frontends, and should be used. The "self sovereign blog" idea was announced here, and is not supported by blurtlatam, but does appear to be supported on the frontend by Tekraze. I strongly disagree with it, and is the main reason I want to find a new frontend, but none that don't use "self sovereign blog" are working correctly.
Sorry if that is confusing! I hope it's useful to you.
PS: What is a "warden" on Blurt?
My dear friend, sorry for the late reply. I ate something that gave me colic problems, and until this morning, I was throwing up what I ate, lol.
Now all good, something weak, but nothing to worry about me.
I understood the information that you have given me perfectly, in fact, I will follow the link that you have given me to have a better understanding of everything because it is a topic that really interests me. Right now I'm studying programming (JavaScript) because I want to develop some things (maybe an interface when I feel qualified) and learn from my own and others' experiences, it is one of the things that is vital to create something that works for all of us and without restrictions.
Some time ago, I talked to Takraze about this point and its interface; I understood his position when he told me that he received too many attacks that reached his personal life. It must not have been easy for him, so I respected his position despite proposing to make some changes to blurt.one.
The role of the warden is the following: Within the chain, there are many users who have created multiple accounts to vote for themselves, make withdrawals of what little they get (the majority get it from the ctime account and the self-vote), and send it to a single account to enlarge it, but after that, they withdraw everything produced and sell it. I believe in the freedom to do the best we see fit with our money, but I also believe that doing this is an abuse, because liquidity is subtracted from the rewards pool that can be distributed to users who really need support when they create very good content for Blurt. Part of my job as a warden is to trace the origin of these accounts (who created them) by tracking withdrawals, as well as verifying that the written content actually is. You can see an example of what I found here, [here](https://blurt.blog/korea /@chuaping/---------20230303t113930z), and also here. These are just some of the accounts that I have found, quite arduous work and a lot of monitoring, but I like it because somehow I learn other things that I did not know and that will surely help me in my learning as a developer.
I have also found users who publish the same content, two and even three times, at different times, so that the photos do not give them away, as well as the same content with different images (self-plagiarism) and of course, what is most abundant: The plagiarism of content from other chains or copy and paste from the internet.
When I find someone doing things the wrong way, I leave a warning so that the person corrects what he should do. I'm not making a threat, just an invitation that if they need to learn how to do things right, I'd be willing to help them if they let themselves be guided.
I have been doing this for a long time, mainly with Spanish-speaking people, Nigerians, and some from Bangladesh.
Likewise, I'm still learning how to do the best I can, and there's definitely a lot I don't know, but with people like you who are always willing to argue their writing, I've been learning much faster, and for that, I'm very grateful for the time you spend responding to my messages.
Thanks, @drutter, for all the help I get from you.
Interesting data, thanks for calculating! I recognize some of those names as people who upvote my posts regularly and whom I also read or follow.
Interesting and laborious data. Thanks to everyone at Blurt, from content creators to curators. Thank you for this content and information.
Awesome that you took your time to do this! I am rank 20! What an honour! 😍
What I didn't know, is that tomoyan is manual! 👍
I'm coming back in a second for a 100% upvote from the coconut! 🥥✅
Thanks, mate!
Good question about @tomoyan. I actually just noticed, I have had that account on mute for quite some time... I guess a while back I noticed it was mostly just spam and put it on mute so I wouldn't have to see it anymore : P
Now having a glance, I see this post, which mentions manual curation, but looks pretty automated. A bit like UpvU, wouldn't you say? Sounds like they are selling votes.
If tomoyan is dropped from the top 10 list in my post, @r2cornell-curate would move up into the 10th spot, just below the related account @r2cornell.
you are right he is not manual
&
Dont forget about ctime he is not manual hhhhh
That is an interesting analysis thanks for taking your time doing this and sharing that information with us @drutter.
I keep pondering why We place such importance on the money, not the content. As I am aiming to remove all accounting for Our energy added into a system (money, from trade barter up to electronic bits), I am guessing My efforts to free Us to Our wealth stolen from Us by the psychopaths in control and held in "trusts" that They are "trustees" for (owning nothing, controlling everything) and use against Us...
This money thing keeps so Many focused on "making it" and not helping to free Humanity from those chains of energy accounting the psychopaths control Us by.
[sigh]
OK, I just checked - I actually earn a lot more on curation per 1M BP than you do
me: 2.8 M BP - Estimated curation rewards last week:
5,759.581 BLURT POWER
you: 1.07 M BP - Estimated curation rewards last week:
1,184.273 BLURT POWER
https://blurtwallet.com/@mariuszkarowski/curation-rewards
I vote mainly on comments, to encourage engagement. This limits my rewards. You vote mainly on posts, maximizing your rewards.
Like I said, you should be applauded for your significant contribution to the platform.
Also mentioned in this post, a week ago, I was at 700k BP. I just got 300k delegated from WTP, which will boost my curation rewards.
comment or post - it doesn't make any difference
I think your calculations are wrong, the only scenario in which you lose curation rewards is when your voting power is sitting at 100%.
"comment or post - it doesn't make any difference"
No, posts get more votes than comments, and other votes increase the value of your vote. That's why whales always vote on posts, and rarely comments. You can see this in action by voting on a new post, taking note of your vote amount (for example, 100 BLURT). Come back the next day, after many other people (especially other big curators) have voted on that post, and you will see your vote is worth more (for example, 130 BLURT). I noticed this last night, when I voted for my wife's post 5 minutes after she made it, my vote was worth 47 BLURT. Then CTime and others voted, and my vote went up to 58 BLURT. This is mentioned in the Blurt FAQ as well. It would make no difference if comments received the same amount of upvotes as posts do, but that isn't the case, so voting on posts makes you more curation rewards than voting on comments.
"the only scenario in which you lose curation rewards is when your voting power is sitting at 100%."
Not using votes (sitting at 100%) obviously means you are not earning curation rewards, and my posts have been very clear about that.
But that is definitely not the only way to lose curation rewards. The less Voting Power you have, the less your votes are worth, meaning the less curation rewards you earn. That's the entire reason Voting Power exists - to punish the overuse of votes. Do you seriously believe we have unlimited votes here on Blurt? Which means, we have unlimited curation rewards, and the only limit to our earnings is our ability to find posts and comments to vote on? Why then do we get the option to vote at 50% strength (actually, anywhere between 1% and 100%)? If our Voting Power doesn't matter, then we should always vote at 100% strength (give full upvotes), and we should always vote on EVERY comment and post we see. Why conserve Voting Power if it doesn't matter?
You are currently at 62% VP, and I am currently at 97%. Are you saying I can give out dozens of full votes right now, going down to 62%, and each vote will still be worth the same amount? If that's true, why not go down even further, to 40%, or 20%, or 1%? If there's no reduction in curation rewards, why not just give everybody on the platform a full upvote right now? This makes logically no sense.
The FAQ is very clear on this. "You start out with 100% voting mana. Every time you vote, you will use a small amount of your voting mana. As you use more of your voting mana, your votes will carry less influence. A vote with 50% voting mana left will be worth 1/2 as much as a vote cast with 100% voting mana. Every 100% vote you cast will use 2% of your remaining voting mana. Your voting mana will recharge linearly by 20% each day. You can vote more than 10 times per day, but each vote will be worth less, and it will take longer to reach full voting mana again."
To understand this better myself, and to demonstrate it to others (like yourself), I am running an experiment right now. I will post the results in about 12 hours, and invite you to check it out. Preliminary data shows that at 100% VP, my vote is worth 52.3 BLURT, and at 90% VP, my vote is worth 47.7 BLURT. That is a reduction of about 9% in vote size (and curation rewards). Each full vote consecutively made is reduced in size by about 2%.
There is however one interesting thing I've discovered, and that is that VP is not reduced by an absolute amount of 2%, but by 2% of the current VP. (I have never heard anyone else say this, here or on Hive/Steem). In other words, if I am at 100% VP and make a full vote, I go to 98% VP. But if I am at 80% VP and make a full vote, I go to 78.4% VP (a loss of 1.6%). What I expect is that if I am at 50% VP (something I have never tried), and make a full vote, I would go to 49% VP (a loss of 1%). So at 50% VP, full votes cost only 1% VP (which is 2% of the remaining VP). No matter the current VP, it increases at 20% per day, meaning someone near 100% VP will get 10 full votes per day, and someone at 50% will get 20 full votes per day (while maintaining approximately the same VP). I have yet to fully confirm this, and do not yet know how it would affect the size of votes (and curation rewards). If you have any observations to share, being down around 60% at the moment yourself, please do. Otherwise, I will continue my experiment on my own and see what I can discover.
I think it's important to understand these nuances, especially for large curators whose growth depends on curation rewards.
that's what I'm saying, you can get a 5- 6 extra % (not a 50 or100 %) when you keep voting at 100% Voting Power
It looks like Blurt keeps this stupid steem rule. Rich get richer. This needs to be eliminated
or maybe we should leave it as it is, because it's an incentive to keep as many BP as possible. I don't know...
Either way, it explains why many delegated to blurtbooster instead of voting manually - they get a higher return for their Blurt Power
Yeah, looks like it. I will know more soon, once I investigate a few things with my experiment. Thanks for the info.
I was also questioning this concept of vote timing being so important and keeping things close to 100% as a way of earning more. Half of a vote that is worth 2% less is a whole lot more return than that 2% loss. I would have to take the time and prove this math but seeing your numbers in practice though is interesting.
yeah, timing doesn't matter at all or it can give you just a couple of %
you lose curation rewards when voting power is sitting at 100%
Experiment with it! Run your VP down to 0%, and see how much your votes are worth. You will be giving out 0 BLURT per vote, and earning 0 BLURT as well. At 50% (like mk currently) you are giving up half your vote. At 90% you are throwing away 10% of your votes. You can read more about it in the Blurt FAQ. The alternative would mean that VP does not influence rewards, but you know that isn't true because when you give out several votes in a row, you notice each one is worth less than the one before it.
Well @drutter is right if he can truly keep his VP at 100% and just vote every 2 hours down to 98% but this is pretty hard to do especially if you find some good content and get carried away with voting. Also sleep may become a problem. Here is a little case I quickly put together.
Voter 2 keeping his vote to 100% would get 64 more blurt in a 24 hour period in this case study. It is up to the individual to decide if 64 blurt is worth it to that person for the sake of convenience. Also it would be interesting to see how this would play out in the real world where sleep and kids and other commitments actually come into play.
Thanks for participating in the discussion, and adding your own calculations! A couple things to note...
A loss of 11% (every day) in curation rewards is significant. Growth on Blurt is exponential, so any loss is compounded over time. 11% loss today, 11% tomorrow, and so on. That really slows growth/income. But for those who can't curate regularly, and have to run down from 100% to 80% once a day, they have no choice. I am not saying it's easy to curate carefully and maximize income (and rewards for people you curate). I'm just showing how it can be done. Everybody has to decide their own strategy, but at least I am showing them how things work, so they can decide with an understanding of the rules and math.
Also, here's something surprising I've discovered, doing some experiments with voting for an upcoming post.
A full vote doesn't reduce VP by 2% in absolute terms! So your calculations aren't quite accurate. I've never heard anyone (on Steem, Hive, or Blurt) who had observed this. What actually happens is a full vote reduces VP by 2% of the current VP. At 100% VP, it's 2%, going down to 98%. But the next full vote doesn't reduce it to 96%! Instead, it reduces it to 96.04%! Another (immediately afterward) brings it down to 94.12%.
This means that at about 50% VP, a full vote only reduces VP by 1%! Interesting, isn't it? And no matter what your VP is, it increases (heals) at 20% per day (1% every 72 minutes). So someone around 50% VP (like MK lately) could do 20 full votes every day, without a net loss of VP. Of course, at 50% VP, your votes are worth half as much, and each earns you half the curation rewards it otherwise would.
I have not fully confirmed all this, or how it impacts strategy (timing of curation), but I'm doing a lot of experimenting and calculations, so I will publish another post about it soon. It may explain why MK is noticing little or no loss of curation rewards at 55% VP relative to maintaining is up in the 90s. I think this is really interesting, and needs further investigation!
I fully agree with you on the extremes as you have pointed out. But from 100-80% this is going to be negligible. But as someone pointed out before on your post on vote timing for you this works well because you are able to vote every 2 hours or so. For someone with a fixed amount of time that they can vote, using their 24 hour allowance of votes means more earning than letting their VP sit at 100% unused. It also increases the amount that you are giving out to content creators. Everyone has their style and what they are able to do which makes it all that much more interesting.
with 1M BP you can't run to zero
I think BP is rebuilding like this
100% - 10 votes per 24h to rebuild
50 20
25 40
12.5 80
6.25 1 60
so there is no chance that one makes more than other one on curation, no matter what is your Voting Power when you are voting
See the table I did above. His method if done 100% correctly does have merit but I am not sure how it would play out in the real world.
Well I was talking about VP, not BP...
But I think I see what you mean, about being able to vote more times at lower VP. You're earning less per vote, but you can do more of them per day? I am keen to figure this out, and will post about it when I have something definitive.
I understand that in Hive, voting time is important in calculating voting effectiveness; In fact, I had read that the most effective time to vote (at least in hive and steemit) is 5 minutes after the post is created, however, checking hivestats.io (still trying to understand how it works and interpret the data it gives), I've seen votes cast in the first minute, with 500% effectiveness, quintupling the curator reward.
In this sense, what is your strategy? Because while it is true that what drutter says makes sense (a vote of 100% does not have the same value as a 90% vote and this is demonstrated empirically by leifasaur) your rewards double those of drutter for each 1 million BP.
So, you must be doing something different so that you are getting better results.
steem has a different curation curve, whoever votes first earns the most. Hive and Blurt are fairer, the curation curve has been flattened so bots don't steal from manual curators
So you mean that, based on Blurt's curation curve, your only strategy is to vote for content no matter what time it was published.
It is good to learn more and more from experienced people; It's a way to grow faster
This is a good job. Am happy for you that you made it to one of the top of the list. Someday I believe my name would be on the list.
I want to appreciate most of the curators, almost half of them I have personally gain upvote from them one way or the other.
Most especially from @kryptodenno I have gotten delegation twice From that account. They have made my journey more easy and smooth here.
RePORTeD
🥓
Nice work
And where would these extra rewards come from?
There's only one source of rewards on this blockchain, you know that.