The community shutout?

There seems to be two sorts of big earner´s at Steemit, the ones that wait to self-vote and the ones who vote immediately (or close to) after posting. I understand that the popular posters get a lot of frontrunners trying to capitalise on the expected large votes to come but is this such a bad thing?

Closing them out also closes out all of the minnows from getting decent curation returns also. If you have a 50 dollar vote but get 200 on a post, is the difference in curation rewards for you that significant? Would it be better to wait a little and reward some of the smaller accounts so they have more incentive to curate?

My vote (with paid delegation) is worth about 8 dollars most of the time (as it is generally around 80% power) and even I wait to vote on the accounts of friends and family. This costs them as less goes to the author but, it gives a chance for their generally smaller audience to benefit a little more. It isn't much, but it is something. On my own posts, it is generally around the 30 minute mark. Unless in a rush, this is what I do.

So, for the accounts who are often getting 100+ dollars a post, would it be more beneficial if they let the smaller accounts frontrun their own vote at least. I understand that sometimes there are big voters who vote early too but often, these are friends and family also. Should the big voters wait so the small can gain?

I am not a great curator, I do not know how it all works in detail but it seems to be somewhat greedy to shutout the smaller accounts by self-voting early. I can completely understand small accounts and low vote values voting early but for the larger, it seems mean-spirited of sorts to take every SP possible whilst getting hundreds of votes from tiny accounts and a few from mega whales.

The other thing I notice from many of the same accounts is that when I have a stickybeak, their voting power is often close to 100 percent which indicates that not only are they taking large rewards, they aren't sharing much out. Now, some every day or two wreck their voting power and wait for it to return but, I have noticed that some do not vote much at all. Perhaps it doesn't matter as the pool gets used anyway but perhaps they are the ones who could significantly increase the value of smaller, quality accounts.

I am interested in the behaviours of people in the real-world and this naturally extends into the Steem-world. One thing that will be very interesting in the time to come is getting the data on how people behave on the blockchain here.

For example, it would be very interesting to see how some of the largest earners and benefitters from the platform use what they earn (power up or transfer out) and spread their own wealth to others. Are the ones who earn a lot community builders themselves? Does their voting value go to the smaller accounts or only to other high-profile users? I don't have the technical capabilities to answer these types of questions so if anyone does, that would be great.

When HF20 comes and makes changes to further incentivise curation, it will be interesting to see how behaviours shift. Most likely, the ones who are the most invested will also be the ones who learn how it all works. Will they choose to community build as well as profit or will they look to maximise their own gain at any cost?

This is not a criticism of the early self-voters, just some questions for discussions. What I wonder is if this is supposed to be about community, if the largest earners aren't acting with a community spirit, why would the smallest?

What is your take on it and if you understand Hardfork 20, how do you think it may affect behaviours?

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]