Well, where is the proof that he published it on DPOS and abandoned it?
And most importantly, even if it was so, what was the reason?
Let me guess the downvotes :P
RE: My reply to @khrom - I've just made a lot of money - if he's not scared or weak !
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My reply to @khrom - I've just made a lot of money - if he's not scared or weak !
I didn't have time to look him up when I responded to you before. But I also followed Styx when he was there. I almost didn't as I assume the need to put 666 in one's name is a cry for attention that screams issues of incompatibility. However I checked out an initial video and found him highly intelligent and humorous in his mocking of the absurd social scene we're in now.
https://steemit.com/@styxhexenhammer
https://hive.blog/@styxhexenhammer/replies
He didn't leave due to downvotes. Neither did Stephen Molyneux.
They made a huge mistake in mimicking what we see here at Blurt now. They thought they could make this a faucet and not interact. Just post, and get rewards. In their cases, they were reposting what they posted elsewhere, so it's all gravy for them.
In Stephen Molyneux's case, I followed him as well very briefly. I commented a couple times to him, and was ignored. I unfollowed him as I can watch the videos he provided on YouTube for free, and I wasn't going to waste my limited voting power on him as he felt our community was beneath him.
Many influencers make this mistake when they come to Dpos. In the case of Styx, I found him funny enough I continued watching his video posts.
In other words, this is proof that dpos works and does not reward you for doing nothing, as Lucilin writes in almost every post:P.
Commitment is rewarded, but it should also work in such a way that if an investor wants to support such creativity with his shares, even though for most people it is just copy-paste, he should be able to do it. This is what was spoiled in previous DPOs by dwonvots because even if I supported such an author, someone else would come and zero my value.
we don't know if YouTube demonetizes such people. Another issue is that there are people who deserve more for their work than the rate that YT pays them.
Especially since these authors did not have to have the attitude of "we are above you". It may just be a simple lack of time.
Unfortunately, when you run many activities and projects, you always have to validate where it is worth paying attention to and where it is not. There are, for example, people I know personally, such as @grzegorzplaczek, who is a member of parliament and does not run any personal profiles, not even on Facebook. And now, for example, you will pay someone to run Facebook because you have 140k recipients there, but, for example, you can automate it on Blurt because you have, let's say, 20 recipients. It could have been the same with these two.
One does not negate the other. One look at the Hot and Trending here on Blurt is proof that low effort is often rewarded.
I'm going to write a post that will address things both you and Marius have talked of, as despite the opposing views you two have on some issues there is overlap. I don't have time today.
yes, but first of all, always try to pay attention to details and beneficiaries. you can often see shitposts in trending that have a 600 blurt reward, but if you look closely, it turns out that they have, for example, 70% to null delegated and they simply got an upvote from ctime. So, in fact, such a post has a value of 180 B / 2, so the author receives 90 B.
There are many such posts.