RE: HF20 Exploratory Data Analysis on Proposed PayOut Changes
I have been following along the discussion as well. I'm not too fond of the 'rich get richer' phrase because it only tells half of the story. The poor also get more. I agree the values can't be compared in absolute terms but still, I find it a one-sided representation of the facts as I understand them. The rich, i.e. the ones that have invested more, that took risks earlier (or just happened to be the lucky first miners) will get more than those that have not invested at all. That sounds reasonable. If it would be the inverse I don't think it would be fair for the rich either.
I do agree with you on the fact that it just is a complex solution that will probably lead to even less understanding of the users. The 30 minute window was invented to circumvent bots and you need to be quite seasoned to understand how it works and what effects it has on your earnings. It's not user friendly at all. Still, people and tools adapted to bypass it and maximize their profits anyway. To some extend the same will happen again. The smart and rich will adapt to benefit more.
I'm not sure about the unintentional behaviors. I think those only apply if you vote really very consciously. I just vote for what I like, I don't look how parameters influence my curation rewards. In that sense an incorrect post payout value won't prevent or motivate me to (not) vote.
I'm also not sure how correct your assumption about this declined reward is. Will it be included in the post reward and be subtracted afterwards or won't it be shown on the interface. They could just keep showing 0 SBD the first 15 minutes but show a number of votes. I don't know, just an idea.
To put it short. I don't agree with your conclusion but I do agree on the fact that it is a bad fix of a previous bad fix for other reasons.
would love to know what reasons you think make it a bad fix?
I do not think it is a bad fix, I just don't think it will work. If it worked it would be good because then there is a chance the rewards pool could grow at a greater rate. but as you say, people will just adapt and that's why i think it will fail as a fix.
Well, you say it yourself, it won't work. That makes it a bad fix. I don't mean to say it will make things worse. But if a fix doesn't fix what it is supposed to fix that makes it a bad fix in my opinion. Just apply the same reasoning when you bring your broken car to the garage. The garage says it is fixed. You get it back and it still doesn't work. I'm guessing you won't consider that a good fix.
You certainly have the right to waste some of your voting power by voting naively if that makes sense to you. But you should be aware that you're wasting some of the voting power of everyone who votes behind you as well.