You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Benefits of Pure Linear Reward Distribution
Why can't there be an easy way to tell the community the best times to vote for good content? I have no idea how these whales are cheating the system and draining the pool.
Firstly, to be clear, whales are not cheating but playing by the (bad-designed) rule. Blame the rule, but not the people.
Secondly, for me, "the best time to vote" should be as simple as "when you read a post and think it's good". (Edit: the point is you shouldn't be punished when doing so)
theyre not really. And there isnt really a magic time.
Because author rewards are superlinear, and curation rewards are just a part of author rewards, that means that in order for there to be any significant curation rewards at all, a whale needs to vote for the post in question. And because there's a huge bonus for early voters over later voters, that means that to get a share you can't get in after the whale.
So who can vote on a post and be sure a whale will vote on the post? Well, a whale. For example, when abit votes on a post that has no votes yet (but has passed the 30 minute reverse auction period), he gets a 1.50 out of the six bucks his vote is worth, regardless of what else happens later. If more people vote for it, hell get more, but he can't get less. And even if he comes on to a post that already has a significant number of upvoters, just the weight he adds means that its probably rare for him to not get a significant piece of the pie for just voting.
In a way, what he proposes would make it a similar situation for anyone.
Now if you can predict the whales, then you could make money. The problem is that if youre predicting a whale vote from authors or topics the whale has already voted for, there are already bots doing that. and theyre taking most of the curation rewards (and giving them back to the author in the reverse auction)