... many were gone faster than they came.
That's what I observe on STEEM since four years ...
However, If bigger accounts support small users, like for example in the "Kneipe", then they will stay (independently of the curve).
And that's why I also disagree with the 'staking theory' of @birdinc: if big accounts just 'stake' (self- or circle vote), there is no reason at all for other, smaller users to join such a self-centered microcosm - and as we all know: the value of a (social) network is measured among others by the number of its users.
... the reduction of self-votes is only a side effect.
I disagree here. Without flags it's even more important than before.
There is another interesting reason in favour of the convergent linear rewards curve: in a linear universe bots could simply spread their votes randomnly without having any disadvantage. With the curve it's worth to vote on posts which other users like too. This effect is getting even more significant in case there won't be a curation window anymore (like for example @double-u prefers), which for now is the other reason not to upvote just randomnly ...
A lot of people talk past each other here.
(Deutsch: Viele reden hier aneinander vorbei.)
So do you two. Jaki, your statements have many contradictions.
I won't say more here. I'd rather write a post about it.
Just prove it! :)
What I see as a contradiction, I explained to you earlier in the Discord. Small accounts are disadvantaged, although you would like to do something for them.
Things are not always as easy as they seem to be: if many bigger stake holders 'milk' the rewards pool because the combination of a linear rewards curve plus no downvotes makes that very profitable, then of course in this shrinking pool remains less for smaller users, even if at a first glance one might think it would be beneficial for them ...
While a small user might post once per day, @haejin easily creates ten mini posts ... which are all more profitable under a linear curve ... and everything @haejin earns can't be earned another time by any small user ...
So as conclusion I claim that a rather full rewards pool (protected from self-voters by the convergent curve!) is more beneficial for small accounts than an empty rewards pool combined with a linear rewards curve. :)
The big stakeholders also "melk" the pool with your curve, because they certainly always have at least 20 units on the post. Unfortunately your curve does not prevent this.
Most big stakeholders wouldn't reach that high rewards (per post) without support from other users! So the user base itself decides whom to reward ... (while nobody could curb the pure self-voting when having a linear curve).
These whale supporters within the community upvote such posts early because of the short curation window and the corresponding expectation of high curation rewards. The planned removal of the short curation window would solve part of the problem and made it less beneficial to blindly upvote posts of big stake holders early.
In general I am not fundamentally against high rewards for great posts. It's a bigger effort to write a quality post than a short comment ...
Maybe you remember these days (or have been told of them) when the curve was neither linear nor convergent linear but n2 as preferred by Dan Larimer (which @afrog admires so much). These days the rewards of some posts were really high, and in my eyes a convergent linear rewards curve is the best possible compromise (I wrote more about that here).
What's wrong with high rewards? There's no better way to attract bloggers massively than high rewards. You can even save yourself some PR. Word gets around extremely fast. We've all experienced it! With each change of the reward curve the steem became less interesting and especially the professional authors saw clearly visibly increasingly no reason to waste their time for such lousy rewards.
In my opinion too high rewards for self-voting, as well as extremely high rewards for trending posts are counterproductive.
The convergent linear rewards curve (which I had recommended years ago!) decreases the rewards for self-voting, allows high posting rewards but prevents extremely high posting rewards - and thus is the best solution.
You called me, @jaki01? What makes you think that I admire anybody like a teenage fan? I'm too old for that. I respect people who have honor, brains, visions and most of all decency. Dan is such a man.
Oops, speaking of decency! On this suitable opportunity I would like to find out why you of all people vote yourself almost continuously on the somehow virgin appearing Blurt. I could never observe this with you in such intensity. Have you lost your fortune, or do you want to prove something to someone? You of all people, I wouldn't have expected such a shabby shuffle. But of course it's your private matter, which is basically none of my business.
Don't be ashamed, it's completely alright to admire anybody, if teenager or old frog, relax. :-)
This is the answer I already gave @wulff-media:
"To earn money? :)
Here are neither flags nor diminishing returns implemented, that means self- and circle-voting are highly appreciated.
Yes, I urge to change that (because I think that in the long run that would be much better for all invstors!), but as long as nobody changes it, I see no reason to let all rewards go to Korean mini posts, and simply claim my part of the cake.
I am not an angel but an investor with self-interests ...
(OK, and as these rewards are only pennies when converted, I admit that my self-voting is also a way to hint at the obvious problem: in a functioning society there would be anybody/any means to curb that ...)"
In short:
"When living in the jungle, to survive you have to adapt to the laws of the jungle ... that doesn't necessarily mean that you prefer to live in a jungle."
I agree on the point with the bots and of course there are other reasons as you wrote before. As someone said, it's like a small tablecloth, if you pull on one end you expose the other side.
We will see how it goes on, thanks for your point of view.
Well said. Future will tell us more.
Who knows the Kneipe?
The term "Kneipe" refers to the periodically appearing posting, a virtual pub of the same name, in which @double-u votes for almost every comment, no matter how trivial it is. This is a good success in the German community. The institution has a very connecting character for bloggers and even newcomers can write themselves into a community very fast.
It doesn't matter who knows the "Kneipe" to name it as example how upvoting comments can help newbies (where the convergent linear reward curve isn't a problem at all).
That makes me angry again. Cause you know me to tell you that it is a problem.
Since the implementation of the nonlinear curve, I've had to vote twice the percentage for my guests. That costs me a lot of money.
For my guests, I have compensated for the negative effect of the curve. But I paid for it.
And outside my pub, because of the curve, almost no strong stakeholder votes on the $0.16 contributions of my guests.
I think you still earn very well with your comment upvotes (you are the first upvoter most of the time), so I see no reason for complaining.
I upvote posts and comments with only few other upvotes in my insect community every day, and it's completely alright for me. The only thing which matters is a higer token value not a maximized curation reward.
I regularly do that if I find the time to read through these comments. Of course I also upvote many other comments of small users, and I never regret it.
For you.
For me and, I suppose, a lot of stakeholders and little accounts but not okay.
Yes, true, I wished more stakeholders would recognize, that in the long term it's worth to support small users (and also their comments) even if that means less curation rewards.
Unfortunately, your wish will not come true.
Therefore, we have to change the rules.
Ja, aber bezüglich des 'Wie' sind wir teils unterschiedlicher Meinung.
Ich halte eine Kombination aus
für am sinnvollsten.
Well, you can do that. But I see it as borderline when you simply wipe the arguments of the majority of our German community off the table with a flick of your wrist.
I just don't share their point of views, that's all.
Nevertheless, they are free to push for their visions to become reality.