You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: No use buying BCH.
Seriously? Did it work like that in the past on curation rewards?
So if I understand you correctly... suppose there was a post, which got rewarded $10,- and there were 4 curators for it: a) $5,- b) $2,- c) $2,- d) $1,- ...
then the rewards given out were distributed quadratically based on the proportion of adding to the pool
so:
5^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2 = 25 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 30 "shares"
- The 'a' curator then got (25/30) * $10,- (*0.5 curator share, at the time, now 0.25), which is 83.3% for the 'a' curator instead of 50%
- The 'd' curator only got 3.33% in stead of 10%
Is this correct @oaldamster?
Basicly it came down to: Steem Power x Steem Power = Vote Weight. With that the reward pool would bet devided. And because half of the Steem, ever to be issued, was handed out in about a year time, with this exponential voting system, there were a lot that considered this quite unfair. It was extremely biased towards account with very high amounts of SP. Making them even getting more SP faster and in big numbers.
Then some of the more wealthy Steem accounts decided to take action and push for 1 Steem Power - 1 Vote Weight. As linear was to be considered to be more fair, although not everybody seemed to understand their actions at the time. Looking back they did a good job.
Since then we have the linear voting weight system. Considered to be more fair. (The Curator - Poster division is about 20-80% of the potential payout, if I remember correctly.)