You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I Am Starting the Winfrey Voting Guild and 100 People can join!
Thank you @whatsup but the question was why does one bother doing a 1% vote when its effect is zero other than distort things - it is a step in the wrong direction, surely. I would love to know why I have the wrong end of the stick!
The idea is to spread the rewards a bit wider, no it won't equal a lot... In the early days everything counts. Also to help new members that aren't on the main bots earn a bit, and get a few votes.
@ebryans
1% X 100 accounts = 1 X 100% Upvotes of the average SP across the accounts
1% X 1000 accounts = 10 X 100% Upvotes of the average SP across the accounts
1% X 10000 accounts = 100 X 100 % Upvotes of the average SP across the accounts
etc...
The more accounts voting like this, the more "KickStart-Capital" a post gets and that inspires the authors to keep blogging and building their audience which can take some time when you are new.
Also, the 1% does not drain your vote-power much, so you still have the freedom to curate in other ways as well.
It is an experiment, not for everybody - but it yields results in the bottom of steemit and I have gotten a lot of thank you PM´s on Discord for it, so I know that newbs enjoy what we do.
Please understand @fyrstikken, I was not levelling a complaint against you, per se. Your vote power probably makes this a valuable exercise. My understanding is that if I vote at 1% and my vote is worth $0.002, then the value of my 1% vote is 0.00002. This does not register and goes into the reward pool to be distributed to the holders of SP, hence heightening the concentration back into the top 60 or so accounts when thousands of these sub $0.001 values are added together. The theory is good but the reality rewards anyone posting any old crap and serves the centralisation, not decentralisation.
So, I thoroughly appreciate your approach. It is an approach which needs to applied on a selective basis. I see there are now 0.7% votes out there.
In monetary terms, it is an insult; you would not treat a beggar this way!
In Game Theory terms it is an approach whereby if one watches a post and it starts to 'go', then an increased vote can bring curation benefits.
As a concept it goes against my, possibly purist and sentimental view, that this is social media!