Good morning blurt family, the first content I read this morning was the content written by dear @drutter about the blurt burning fashion. I think you should read it for information!
"Burning" (Deleting) BLURT is a stupid fad
I am not going to go into the right or wrong of blurt burning; I just want to be informed!
I am a user who participated in the blurt burning trend initiated by dear @ctime. I participated because I believe, in a straightforward logic, that burning will drive up the price.
But there is an interesting information in the comments section of drutter's content. According to this information; curators are not affected by blurt burning in content. In other words, the burning process only takes place from the author's own share.
If I give an example to understand this better; When the author chooses 50% @null as the beneficiary in the content he created and his content receives a total of 1000 blurt awards, half of it, 500 blurt, needs to be burned. Of the remaining 500 blurt, 250 blurt, which is half, should go to the author and 250 blurt should go to the curator.
This is exactly what I understood from the burning process, but according to the commentary; this is not how it works. In a content that is 50% @null, half of the 1000 blurt award goes to the curators. 250 of the 500 blurt, which is the half share left for the author, is burned, and the author gets 250 blurt share.
The curators receive their prizes in full, while the author sacrifices theirs. If this information and calculation is correct, wouldn't the principle of equality and justice be lost?
If there is a weight in the middle and this weight constitutes a problem that concerns everyone, shouldn't we all carry an equal burden when removing the weight?
Obviously, I and the blurt users who have been following this thread need to be informed about how the incineration process takes place in the content in question. I am ready to support any initiative to raise the price of blurt.
Tax for thee, but not for me....(says all the large stakeholders in this WEF 'stakeholder capitalism' model - pssst ! - it's feudalism with a smiley face)
Dear @lucylin
As far as I know today @blurtbooster is also available for content creators who don't join "November Burn", so just enjoy his vote without having to feel at a loss, we do the burning just for fun and don't feel at all at a loss, and we actually think if Blurt tokens are not burn away, day after day they will pile up into worthless trash. don't be offended by our bonfire
lolololol - the people who run blurtbooster - 1/ tried to have my account closed, said 2/ 'I wouldn't upvote you if you wrote the next shakespeare, blah blah blah...
They are the low iq, high hubris, resentful idiots -and not much of a help to anyone - most of all to themselves..
They think collectivist conformity and dull as dishwater content, will grow the platform somehow...bless.
I wont be waiting for an upvote from them anytime soon! lolol (not unless they suddenly got a dose of pragmatism and ego farts)
LMFAO
That is why i suggested only large accounts should set their posts to null.
The little accounts , even if Blurt Price is super low compared to 2 years ago , they still need to build.
Thanks for opening up the conversation I am defo supportive of done kind of burning protocol
I’m not rly doing it to earn more rewards but because I would like to drive up the price a bit of blurt. Not being any good at maths or tokenomics it’s good to see ppl having the discussions on how to make it work best. I think some bigger accounts burning a bit of blurt can’t be a bad thing tho Altho not sure it’s the right thing for small accounts at all
this way nobody would vote on posts with @null
that's how it works, but it still can be profitable for author, eg:
you set 50% null
I vote 1000 BLURT
I will get 500 BLURT, you will get 250 BLURT, without my vote you will get 0 BLURT
Of course, you will get votes from other curators, so you have to calculate what would be optimal % for you to profit from my vote
So penalizing the content creators - THE PRODUCERS that make dpos blockchain even possible -- while at the same time, enriching the blurt bureaucrat class and financial wheeler dealers. (no tax for me, but tax for thee).
Hmmm, my friend...a very big ...Hmmmm....
Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org
This is not mandatory, you don't have to set @null as post beneficiary so don't call it a tax
You forgot that this blockchain can exist without any interface, author or curator, all you need to do is to keep price of coin at level which will cover costs of running nodes.
Yes, this is how it works, depending on the amount you set to null is what will be burned and the rest will be distributed among the participants as it normally is.
thanks :)