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.
RE: The 20 biggest manual curators on Blurt
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The 20 biggest manual curators on Blurt
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.