OK, I just checked - I actually earn a lot more on curation per 1M BP than you do
me: 2.8 M BP - Estimated curation rewards last week:
5,759.581 BLURT POWER
you: 1.07 M BP - Estimated curation rewards last week:
1,184.273 BLURT POWER
https://blurtwallet.com/@mariuszkarowski/curation-rewards
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.
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.
I was also questioning this concept of vote timing being so important and keeping things close to 100% as a way of earning more. Half of a vote that is worth 2% less is a whole lot more return than that 2% loss. I would have to take the time and prove this math but seeing your numbers in practice though is interesting.
yeah, timing doesn't matter at all or it can give you just a couple of %
you lose curation rewards when voting power is sitting at 100%
Experiment with it! Run your VP down to 0%, and see how much your votes are worth. You will be giving out 0 BLURT per vote, and earning 0 BLURT as well. At 50% (like mk currently) you are giving up half your vote. At 90% you are throwing away 10% of your votes. You can read more about it in the Blurt FAQ. The alternative would mean that VP does not influence rewards, but you know that isn't true because when you give out several votes in a row, you notice each one is worth less than the one before it.
Well @drutter is right if he can truly keep his VP at 100% and just vote every 2 hours down to 98% but this is pretty hard to do especially if you find some good content and get carried away with voting. Also sleep may become a problem. Here is a little case I quickly put together.
Voter 2 keeping his vote to 100% would get 64 more blurt in a 24 hour period in this case study. It is up to the individual to decide if 64 blurt is worth it to that person for the sake of convenience. Also it would be interesting to see how this would play out in the real world where sleep and kids and other commitments actually come into play.
Thanks for participating in the discussion, and adding your own calculations! A couple things to note...
A loss of 11% (every day) in curation rewards is significant. Growth on Blurt is exponential, so any loss is compounded over time. 11% loss today, 11% tomorrow, and so on. That really slows growth/income. But for those who can't curate regularly, and have to run down from 100% to 80% once a day, they have no choice. I am not saying it's easy to curate carefully and maximize income (and rewards for people you curate). I'm just showing how it can be done. Everybody has to decide their own strategy, but at least I am showing them how things work, so they can decide with an understanding of the rules and math.
Also, here's something surprising I've discovered, doing some experiments with voting for an upcoming post.
A full vote doesn't reduce VP by 2% in absolute terms! So your calculations aren't quite accurate. I've never heard anyone (on Steem, Hive, or Blurt) who had observed this. What actually happens is a full vote reduces VP by 2% of the current VP. At 100% VP, it's 2%, going down to 98%. But the next full vote doesn't reduce it to 96%! Instead, it reduces it to 96.04%! Another (immediately afterward) brings it down to 94.12%.
This means that at about 50% VP, a full vote only reduces VP by 1%! Interesting, isn't it? And no matter what your VP is, it increases (heals) at 20% per day (1% every 72 minutes). So someone around 50% VP (like MK lately) could do 20 full votes every day, without a net loss of VP. Of course, at 50% VP, your votes are worth half as much, and each earns you half the curation rewards it otherwise would.
I have not fully confirmed all this, or how it impacts strategy (timing of curation), but I'm doing a lot of experimenting and calculations, so I will publish another post about it soon. It may explain why MK is noticing little or no loss of curation rewards at 55% VP relative to maintaining is up in the 90s. I think this is really interesting, and needs further investigation!
I fully agree with you on the extremes as you have pointed out. But from 100-80% this is going to be negligible. But as someone pointed out before on your post on vote timing for you this works well because you are able to vote every 2 hours or so. For someone with a fixed amount of time that they can vote, using their 24 hour allowance of votes means more earning than letting their VP sit at 100% unused. It also increases the amount that you are giving out to content creators. Everyone has their style and what they are able to do which makes it all that much more interesting.
with 1M BP you can't run to zero
I think BP is rebuilding like this
100% - 10 votes per 24h to rebuild
50 20
25 40
12.5 80
6.25 1 60
so there is no chance that one makes more than other one on curation, no matter what is your Voting Power when you are voting
See the table I did above. His method if done 100% correctly does have merit but I am not sure how it would play out in the real world.
Well I was talking about VP, not BP...
But I think I see what you mean, about being able to vote more times at lower VP. You're earning less per vote, but you can do more of them per day? I am keen to figure this out, and will post about it when I have something definitive.
I understand that in Hive, voting time is important in calculating voting effectiveness; In fact, I had read that the most effective time to vote (at least in hive and steemit) is 5 minutes after the post is created, however, checking hivestats.io (still trying to understand how it works and interpret the data it gives), I've seen votes cast in the first minute, with 500% effectiveness, quintupling the curator reward.
In this sense, what is your strategy? Because while it is true that what drutter says makes sense (a vote of 100% does not have the same value as a 90% vote and this is demonstrated empirically by leifasaur) your rewards double those of drutter for each 1 million BP.
So, you must be doing something different so that you are getting better results.
steem has a different curation curve, whoever votes first earns the most. Hive and Blurt are fairer, the curation curve has been flattened so bots don't steal from manual curators
So you mean that, based on Blurt's curation curve, your only strategy is to vote for content no matter what time it was published.
It is good to learn more and more from experienced people; It's a way to grow faster