Jaki, your statements have many contradictions.
Just prove it! :)
RE: Rewards on Blurt: Request for Comment
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Rewards on Blurt: Request for Comment
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
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 are totally right under the condition, selfvoting remains. But the government should scratch this destructive possibility. Selfvoting drains the pool and destroys the social reputation of any selfvoter. There is no notorios selfvoter respected by communities except by pool draining whale gangs.
Here we go!!
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."
That's not nice!
You could be involved in the development of alternative instruments (other than downvotes and non-linear curves) that prevent or curb abuse.
The founders and developers of BLURT invest a lot of idealism and a lot of time of their lives in this.
I also bring a lot of idealism with me.
Sabotage, which you are doing, is the very wrong way here!
This reasoning contains no ethics.
I also live offline in a "jungle". But I don't do all the bad things just because I'm not punished for them.
I am very disappointed.
The founders of Blurt explicitely appreciate self-votes!
But I don't quote @birdinc (he is for example talking about "staking") again, because I did it already many times.
How can you call anything sabotage of which the founders think it is great?
I try to show that it isn't great. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't like @berniesanders, but with his spamming he is the reason why we are having transactions fees now (so in the end it was the best he could do).
I have lived in the Whale and Self-Voter Jungle since I have been on the Steem and have never taken advantage of this opportunity for enrichment. Only once by accident. This is the way most people who still have honour and decency in their bodies practice it. In my opinion, such behavior destroys the social reputation of the user. Even if he was as highly regarded as you once were on the steem. But these are personal resentments, maybe even from far too moral wimps, which apparently play no role where the primary goal is to recapitalize his investment with the highest possible profit. But I thank you for dropping your pants so relentlessly against yourself.
There have always been hope and also some more or less successful actions against self-voting on STEEM. Here it is appreciated, here there aren't flags. That is the difference.