The Steemit account does not curate. Why?

in dpoll •  15 days ago

The Steemit account does not curate. Why?


Dpoll does. Dtube does. Busy does. Other dApps do.

Why not the Steemit account?

Would it do more harm than good? Are there limits to what the reward pool can handle? Should Steemit not use its stake because it's just too large?

Please choose the answer you feel best reflects your thoughts, and feel free to expound on why you chose it.

Image source—steemitworld.


  • The Steemit Account is too big. 33 million-plus SP would destroy the reward pool.

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.

  • Steemit Inc. doesn't need to curate. They've got advertising to make money with.

  • Good question. I don't know why they don't curate.

  • Maybe they should curate. They could try it on the test.net first. See what it does to the reward pool.

  • I think they should be curating. It would actually help STEEM if they did.

  • Dude! Even with a 1% upvote, they'd leave 30 times more than I make on a post!!!

  • Steemit needs the account to pay bills.

  • Other (please explain)

Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.
·

Hey, @cryptoburner.

Thank you for your response. There are plenty of people saying that, and I know I've read similar sentiments in comments. I just haven't been able to verify how much it might be, or whether there upvoting posts would end up offsetting any loss incurred in curation. Have you? As far as I know Steemit has never tried it, even in small percentages, and I'd be interested to see if it's ever been tried, tested, etc.

Voted for

  • Good question. I don't know why they don't curate.
·

Hey, @abbak7.

Me neither. At least nothing concrete.

I've read some comments over the months that say that the reward pool would be unduly roiled, or that it would go too much in their favor, sucking rewards from the rest of us, etc. I've also read that it's best if it just stays put so the rest of us have more to draw from, and I've heard that it should also be dispersed throughout the rest of the community at some point (something that Steemit apparently said they would do from the beginning).

We also so recently where a shell of a pull request about hard forking Steemit's account off of STEEM on an unrelated Github repository caused a reaction by Steemit to start powering down, which in turn caused a reaction by others to call for hard forking Steemit, if not directly, at least as 'something to be discussed.'

So, I'm searching for the right answer when it comes to this, and I'm increasingly concerned that no one really knows.

Other. They indicated at the beginning that their large stake would eventually be mostly given to the community (which didn't happen). There has been a knock on them from the start over that large stake being centralization which has been part of the FUD we see in the larger cryptoshere. If they were to begin using it, it would bolster that attack, as well as shrink the pool from everyone else. Indirectly they already have a massive pull from the vest adjustments from the pool.

Notice that for the most part, they allow this to be a wild west free for all. They could use their stake to stop many things, use it to promote many things. They have shown for the most part they are willing to cede control until such a time as others raise a large enough stake to shed them of the FUD.

·

Hey, @practicalthought.

I've read about the eventual dispersal to the community. While it hasn't largely happened yet, they do have 10 million STEEM committed to the foundation the STEEM Alliance is working on. And while that doesn't constitute all their STEEM, it's a hefty amount. If it happens, obviously.

I get the centralization part. I also get that they created STEEM and despite what anyone else thinks, by virtue of creating it, they have more right to it than anyone. Even if they welch on their good intentions. It is true, that has consequences, and people call it all kinds of things, but as you say later, they've really done nothing, overtly anyway, that I can tell. They're not really controlling anything here, other than through the hard forks, and for the most part, they've made things more Wild West than not (except if you don't have money to invest or another way to quickly pump up RCs).

re: shrink the pool

I've read that, too, but how do we know this? And would it make any difference if they were upvoting at a quarter of percent as opposed to 10 percent or higher?

I went looking for posts (unfortunately spent most of the day doing it) and came up with nothing regarding why Steemit shouldn't do it. I know I've read comments as to why, but those are even harder to find.

I've come to the conclusion on a lot of what happens here, especially after Hard Fork 20, that no one really knows what would happen, and that it's oftentimes (maybe not all the time) merely conjecture. I don't want conjecture. I want proof. I want to see where it was tested and how badly it failed. Maybe someone has already done that and I just can't find it because, well, you can't hardly find what you want on STEEM.

Which is another thing, but besides the point. :)

Voted for

  • Other (please explain)

I think they should allocate SP to other quality curation projects and allow them to decide on who should be curated and receive upvotes.
Steem inc. Needs to remain neutral and allow the community to naturally make decisions on what's worthy of upvotes or not.

(Let's be honest, would you trust them to make good decisions? They can't even role out a simple wallets split without screwing up an already clunky front end and pissing half the community off in the process lol)
Hope you're well mate :-)

·

Hey, @nathen007.

I am doing okay. Thank you. :) You?

re: allocate SP

I wouldn't mind allocating/giving SP to curation projects, if that's how they wanted to do it. I believe that your account is your account, so it would be up to them, obviously. The more I think about it and the more I see, the less I like the idea of it all being sidelined, though.

re: neutrality

I think they've pretty much let things go, when they really don't have to. I think they have interests to protect, just like any one of us would, and just because they created the STEEM blockchain and are the main force behind it now, doesn't mean, in my mind, that they don't get a say. That's like being invited to live with someone in a home that's not yours, maybe even being fed and clothed, too, and then being told to shove off while we trash their house. :)

re: good decisions

I think they're pretty oblivious or arrogant or whatever it is when it comes to a lot of things. I don't think anyone affiliated with Steemit Inc would want to take the time to curate anyway, so they'd have to hire on or contract out or something. The idea is, putting their money where their mouth is.

STEEM is supposed to be the place where individuals, businesses, and organizations can come and create revenue. Everyone here tries to do it except them. They get to live off whatever 'interest' they earn from their holdings, and now, since that wasn't enough, I guess ads, which in their own literature they say ads are a double edged sword and that STEEM was created as the better way.

I think anything they do of any major import that substantially changes anything is going to upset someone. I knew since January from reading their blog that they were going to make the wallet split. I knew I should write down the passwords, too. I'm not thrilled with the way the wallet works now, constantly needing to sign in every time you want to do something (that needs to be fixed), but I don't mind the intent of keeping it safe while they mess around with the social part.

There's informing people of changes, and there's also everyone's responsibility to be informed, and I think both sides needs to do a better job of it and not think what they're already doing is enough.

So, after all that, I really do think we're on the same page (though I'm wondering if you think that way. :) There's no way to deny or deflect what you're saying, and I agree the track record is bumpy at best. I just think we'd all be better served if that SP was doing more than waiting to be de-powered to pay bills.

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.

I think Steemit should keep supporting projects and dApps with delegations as this appears to be the best option for me.

Curating users with such an amount of Steem Power will obviously led to the downfall of many dApps like partiko, Esteem and busy.org

Also, if Steemit has to start curating, most people will target the curation system or curation team (in the case of manual curation) and they will always be legit complaints and criticism about the system.

·

Hey, @akomoajong.

I can't really argue with any of that. I could see where people might want to stop using the other blogging dApps for Steemit, although partiko and esteem are more geared for mobile, and those who are using it are more likely to keep using it because it's their only option or the more convenient option. Otherwise, I can't see trying to thumb away on a tiny screen. :)

I'm sure it does open Steemit up to all kinds of calls for corruption, above and beyond what they've got now. I think they're darned if they do and darned if they don't, no matter what. Some people just have it out for them, and they have the luxury of not needing to prove they could do anything better.

It goes against the grain, in my opinion, to have ads running all over the blog feed page, when STEEM was specifically created as a better way. It also goes against the grain that Steemit is expected, apparently, to help every dApp that comes along that gathers a following of some kind when none of them seem to need any capital or feasible business plan to speak of, can get their following somehow, and then even leave for their own blockchain or start up SMTs on Ethereum if they so desire.

So, it's like pick your poison. :) And none of it seems to help Steemit, and until there's a viable option for STEEM blockchain and maintenance, it doesn't help STEEM, either.

·
·

Hello Glen, I think you have cited out some great Points over there and I also want to give you a thumbs up for a great poll 👍

although partiko and esteem are more geared for mobile, and those who are using it are more likely to keep using it because it's their only option or the more convenient option.

Personally, I'm browsing from mobile and even though I turn to be addicted to partiko, I rarely used it to post. This is because partiko does not offer much in terms of post curation. This to say should Steemit start curating posts, it will be an easy switch for me and if they extend this curation to comments, I might end up uninstalling Partiko :)

It also goes against the grain that Steemit is expected, apparently, to help every dApp that comes along that gathers a following of some kind when none of them seem to need any capital or feasible business plan to speak of, can get their following somehow, and then even leave for their own blockchain or start up SMTs on Ethereum if they so desire.

I understand what you are pointing out though I am not sure Steemit is currently delegating to a dApp or initiative that is not having a great impact on the blockchain. With the case of Dlive, Steemit was just a victim of circumstance as even the entire community had their believe in Dlive.

Always grab to connect with you. Have a great day ahead! 🍻

Posted using Partiko Android

Voted for

  • Other (please explain)

They don't need anymore stake, they have at least 20% of the total supply. Not just that one account. I don't think a lot of people would be very happy if they did start using it.

Personally I'm not one to judge, I wouldn't protest if they decided to start using it. Not unless they started self voting shit posts with it, then we might as well make like a tree and leave.. hehe 🤣

As for the reward pool, utilizing just that 33 million SP (not including the rest) as long as it was on other peoples accounts their reward from curating would probably net them about 35k steem a week of the total 866k supply. Self voting probably 4x as much as they have 16% of the 200 million SP on that one account.

·

Hey, @pjau.

Finally! Someone showing up with some math!

I guess I question what they need, then. They apparently need to use their stake to pay bills—they've been doing that since I got here. I think it's reasonable they should pay their devs and other employees for the work they're doing, especially since it's pretty specialized, proprietary work. Which to me means, they should be able to make money, because apparently the SP they do have sitting there is supposed to keep the reward pool high enough so others can take it (other whales, I'm guessing).

I'm just trying to make sense of why Steemit has to resort to ads, when STEEM was designed as the answer to ads, and every dApp that shows up is using STEEM to earn revenues, to whatever degree they can, and might even be receiving a hefty delegation from Steemit to do it.

So, if they were pulling down that kind of SP a week, it would add to the reward pool, right? And they wouldn't have to use the reserves? And in the meantime, the rest of us could be enjoying some decent upvotes.

I'm sure there would have to be some rules set up, and it wouldn't be ned or anyone currently working for Steemit who would end up doing the curating, and it would probably be good if those folks were compensated somehow, and there would still be cries of foul play because that's what people do when it's not them running the show and having to defend their own stupid mistakes....

But I digress. :)

·
·

Hey

They apparently need to use their stake to pay bills

They could always impose a beneficiary tax for using the Steemit website to post. I don't know how high it would have to be, but even if they made it low like 1% I'm sure that would help to fund their staff. 👍

I'm just trying to make sense of why Steemit has to resort to ads

I'm ok with the ads, they only show it to people that are not logged in. I use Brave browser now so that has a build in blocker anyway, before that I was always an Adblock user. To be honest they would be better off making it so people can pay with Steem to advertise on the website, that would not only be easy for users to use, they would be doing something investors would be interested in, paying for advertising with crypto, who wouldn't want to do that? And a blockchain that allows you to create a system where it is possible to do that and also has a built in community and is a social media platform. Like wtf, why are they using Google ads.. haha, allowing people to opt in to these crypto ads too, maybe rewarding them for opting in! Why are they not doing this. 😍

So, if they were pulling down that kind of SP a week, it would add to the reward pool, right?

It would reduce majority of users SP earning by a noticeable amount. Unless you were the lucky account being curated by the god account that is @steemit. 😍🙌 But I'm sure they could get by with 35k Steem a week for funding dev.

have to be some rules set up

Corruption will happen whatever the rules. 😂

This has been a pretty big question that many have asked, myself included.

It's pretty disappointing to see that much SP just sit there when it could be used to encourage the community to post and, well, use Steemit/Steem.

They don't have to drop 100%, 75% or 50% upvotes around, just some curation would be a big sign of dedication to the community.

I think, perhaps, they might not want to do so due to the fact that Steemit Inc launched Steem and essentially stealth mined it without providing too much information on how to mine Steem for others, giving themselves the advantage.

To use that stake to earn more Steem from the reward pool might be seen as too unethical to some.

·

Hey, @namiks.

You're thinking like I'm thinking. Even a 1% upvote from them ($9.66) would be extremely generous for most of us, and since it's possible to do fractions of percents, like 0.25%, that amount could be even smaller. I don't know. I get that there's issues with what the curation might do to ours, and that there could be some ethical issues, but the fact is, they've created STEEM for everyone to use to generate revenues, but they're not allowed to use it? Instead, they have to run ads? After saying in the white paper, STEEM was created as a better way than ads to generate revenue?

So, I guess it's ethics vs. putting money where you're mouth is.

·
·

Everything's gone pretty backwards for sure. I'm heavily against ads; I think there's other things that could be done to generate revenue without essentially sabotaging the entire purpose of the blockchain existing.

Aside from ethics, the most sense comes from the fact that Steemit Inc can't just keep dumping Steem because it'll only cripple the market. The more Steem they make and want to sell, the harder it is for the price to increase, and ultimately leads to less money being made for them by constantly adding selling pressure.

Once again, fuck ads. There's alternatives they can and I believe definitely should consider once they've implemented all this cost reduction. Let's hope they do that after.

Voted for

  • Other (please explain)

What is the point of having more than 33 million Steem Power, if they are not doing anything with it, other than Powering it Down?
They should definitely do something good with it.
Maybe they should curate, but at least they should delegate some of their Steem Power to project/dApp developers, and/or to good dApps.
Maybe they should (at least sometimes) give (even some small) upvotes to new and old users to encourage them to use the platform.
A lot of people's posts are not seen, and the user retention of Steemit is very bad.
Many people are left and still leaving Steemit and the whole Steem blockchain.
Or maybe the Steemit account should upvote interesting and quality contents, including posts about project/dApp development to support project and dApp developers.
Or maybe they should upvote quality, meaningful, real, human comments to encourage real, human interaction on the Steem blockchain, but especially on Steemit. Nowadays the real, human interaction on Steemit is rare.
Or maybe the Steemit account should upvote contests, giveaways, and photo and other challenges.
All of these would support certain groups on the Steem blockchain, and also the whole community of Steemit and the Steem blockchain.
The Steemit account probably should at least delegate some of their Steem Power to project/dApp developers, or to good dApps.
For example dPoll, Steem Monsters (Splinterlands), SteemWorld, Musing, TokenBB.
If they would delegate some Steem Power to project/dApp developers and/or to good dApps, then that would actually help the whole Steem blockchain.

·

Hey, @xplosive.

Sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same page. I'm coming at it from the aspect of what could be beneficial to Steemit Inc from a revenue earning perspective—the Steemit account should be able to generate a bunch of curation, but could also do some other things to generate income.

And they could certainly allocate more to delegation, which they already have over 18 million in SP going to various different dApps and other projects. Musing had one until it was pulled. I'd wholeheartedly agree that steemworld is should get one.

The power downs are back to what they believe they need to pay people. I don't think what they earn as a massive holder of SP is enough to keep up with what they take out. The larger amounts they were powering down because of the potential hard fork incident has stopped. Eventually, though, unless their revenue increases, they will run out of SP in all of their accounts.

So, everything you say there would be great, and better if they were generating income from it.

Thanks for contributing to the dPoll content.

You have been upvoted from our community curation account (@dpoll.curation) in courtesy of This Guy... @bluerobo.

Come, join our community at dPoll discord server.


If you want to support dPoll curation, you can also delegate some steem power. Quick steem connect links to delegate:
50SP | 100SP | 250SP | 500SP

·

I appreciate this upvote, thank you, @dpoll.curation and @bluerobo. I think dpoll is a great way to build community and serve engagement on the STEEM blockchain, if people will use it that way. Keep up the good work. :)

Voted for

  • I think they should be curating. It would actually help STEEM if they did.
·

Hey, @alexvanaken.

I'd like to believe that. There's plenty of people who think differently. My main thought in this was, it gives Steemit the ability to generate more income without using ads, and it keeps them true to their founding mission with STEEM, to provide a better way than ads. What better way to do that than having the flagship app leading the way. But there's a lot of distrust, and some of it is definitely earned. At this point, I doubt we'll ever find out, but I think it's good to wonder, and discuss it.

Thank you for participating. Is there anything you would like to add?

·
·

I think there are definitely some projects that would be worth their time to upvote even micro-percents. But that is ultimately up to their discretion, just like any other stakeholder so I understand also. Maybe they will play a bigger role in the social rewarding aspect in the future.

Voted for

  • The Steemit Account is too big. 33 million-plus SP would destroy the reward pool.
·

Hey, @rem-steem. Thank you for your answer.

It seems like I've read comments to that effect, too, by others who are in the know (or know better how the reward pool works), but I couldn't find any posts about it, or studies that might simulate what would happen if Steemit did it. Or where they tried it on a testnet just to see. Have you? Trying to find posts around here, especially old ones, is like looking for a needle in a haystack, :)

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.

They should not curate but They should support and delegate steem power to some awesome projects.

·

Hey, @wahab9107.

Thanks for the answer. So, is this in addition to the 18 million or so they already do through the misterdelegation account? I can't remember exactly, but it seems like there's already ten, possibly more, dApps and other projects receiving various amounts of delegation.

I was looking at this from the standpoint of revenue that they supposedly shouldn't touch for one reason or another, but apparently it's okay for them to go after advertising revenue, which goes against the whole reason for STEEM existing in the first place, according to the white paper, and what SMTs are suppose to help with, according to what's on that website.

I think there's many ways this could come about, but that 33 million SP waiting to be used for bills could be put to use in the meantime, I think. However, it happens, and especially if it makes them money.

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.

Also it would move away from a neutral position. Delegation to apps is a better way

·

Hey, @bluerobo.

That seems to be the growing consensus. More delegation to dApps beyond, I presume, the 18 million or so they're already doing through misterdelegation.

Is it okay for them to charge a goodly rate for this delegation? I have not checked to see if that's what Steemit does with the other delegations or not, but for some reason I don't think they do.

I'm looking for beneficial ways Steemit could help the blockchain but at the same time generate revenue, so they don't have to resort to ads, which the white paper says STEEM was created as a better solution to ads. Seems a little strange that the creators of STEEM and the flagship dApp can't use it for the same purposes of everyone else. :)

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.
·

Thank you for the answer. Do you have anything you'd like to add as far as why that would be? And whether or not it could be made up by the fact that people would be receiving upvotes from them? I'm curious to figure this out, since I can't seem to find any posts regarding just why Steemit curating would be ultimately bad for all of us.

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.
·

Hey, @newageinv.

So, would you mind elaborating on that? I'm wondering if this is something that would happen in every instance, say even down to 1% upvotes or less, simply because of their SP amount, or if it would be mitigated by smaller and spread out upvotes.

Also, if these upvotes are managing to make the rounds of maybe whitelisted or otherwise deemed non-spam accounts, what we might lose in curation could be made up and then some in post rewards, could it not?

I know i've read comments expressing issues with this, but then I've read a lot of things that seem to contradict whatever Steemit might be or might not be doing. So, I'm at the point where I'm needing to see some kind of test results, something more substantial. Have you ran across something like that perchance? I went searching half the day for anything relating to what happens if Steemit actually curates and found nada as far as posts were concerned. Plenty of warnings against self-upvoting from 2-3 years ago, believe it or not, but nothing about Steemit and curation. :)

·
·

I think that the weight of there votes, not matter what the % will take away from others as not many other whales are curating either. It may also bring some issues regarding how they select curated content as opinions may be seen as biased if upvoted and may send connotations that they really would not want to got through.

Posted using Partiko iOS

·
·
·

I get the potential of people being upset with them. meanwhile, you have other dapps upvoting stuff all the time. it's actually what they're expected to do to make money. But not Steemit. I don't know. It just seems like a huge Catch-22 has been created that doesn't make any sense, and the more that I try to unravel it, the worse it gets. :) Not frustrated though. No. Not me. :)

Voted for

  • I think they should be curating. It would actually help STEEM if they did.

i think Steemit is incompetent. from what I understand, they found their managing director looking for a job in a parking garage and hired her on the spot.... that says a lot to me.

·

Hey, @jeffjagoe.

re: managing director

Wow. I hadn't heard that. Definitely not a normal way of doing business.

re: incompetent

I think there's definitely been some pretty bad mistakes made, particularly with the business side of things. I can't speak to the blockchain part of it. I keep hearing how it's all new, they're inventing as they go, and so forth, so that part can't be as easy as creating a website that works.

The reasons why they're not curating, though, I think isn't because of incompetence, but from either the fact or perception that it would be a) unethical, b) break the reward pool or c) take the curation rewards from everyone else. I don't know if all or any of that is true. I don't think we'd want devs or ned doing the curating (and frankly, they wouldn't want to), but it would be good to have a group of curators using that SP to generate revenue (instead of ads) and benefiting the rest of us.

·
·

Yeah here’s the interview from @coruscate where she talks about how she started working at Steemit:

I agree, their curation would take away from others, and they would most likely be scrutinized for who they upvote, but I still think their stake should be used to benefit the platform, whether it be through delegations or upvotes.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Voted for

  • Maybe they should curate. They could try it on the test.net first. See what it does to the reward pool.

I'm not sure why they don't, but I lean towards the possibility that it'd completely fuck up the rewards pool, right?

Either way, testing it would surely be an interesting experiment to see!

·

Hey, @stuffbyspencer.

It definitely would be, and if it messed it up, fine. Don't do it. But I see a lot of conjecture thrown around why this should happen or that shouldn't, and it all gets very contradictory. So, let's prove it. Put it to the test where it can't hurt anything and see what it does.

I suspect, however, that it's not so much a rewards pool issue, as it is how it affects curation for everyone else, and when the bigger accounts are making most of their income directly or indirectly off of curation (through leased delegations), and the bid bot owners are doing the same thing, I think you have some powerful reasons for staying out of the curation game, even if you're already treading enough water that you're now running ads.

Voted for

  • Good question. I don't know why they don't curate.
·

Hey, @doze.

I've read plenty of reasons against it, but nothing I would consider deal breakers or concrete. So, I don't know why it couldn't happen.

Voted for

  • Good question. I don't know why they don't curate.

As you know, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. :-)

·

Hey, @quotes-haven.

Well, then, you and I are together in this.

Fact is, I don't know who knows for sure on this one. It seems to be common knowledge and readily accepted that Steemit shouldn't curate, but I can't seem to find any posts where someone ran it through a theoretical test, or where Steemit actually tried it on a testnet and blew up the reward pool. So, it just seems like people want the SP there to allow for more to be allocated by the rest of us, while Steemit is resorting to advertising, something they've said STEEM was created to be the better way. :)

·
·

Hi there, @glenalbrethsen. You can call me Vince/Vincent if you like. :-)
There are leaders and there are followers. I belong to the latter. I am contend to follow until I feel otherwise. Meanwhile, I just have to trust the leaders to know what they are doing, since I am not sharp enough to know otherwise. :-)

·
·
·

There's probably a few more groups there, since I've led and I've followed, and while I prefer the latter, I've ended up leading just because there were things I wanted to do (run a business) or because I was asked to do it (at church), and because I became a husband and father (which is probably more like leading with a bunch of backseat drivers. :)

At any rate, I know what you're saying. There's a lot of technical aspects to what we do here that I'm certainly not the expert at. Does that mean I'll never understand it? Maybe? Does that mean I can't question it? I hope not.

How about I call you Vincent, and you can call me Glen?

·
·
·
·

Hi Glen. Of course, you have every right to ask questions. And you should be presented with the answers.
For me, it is just too much for my simple mind, and I am quite happy to let the leaders lead. :-)

Aaarrgghhh... do I need to login to dpoll again😯 I'll skip😊 I hate login through steemconnect using my phone.. it'd take ages to login 😂😂😂

But if you want to know what I will vote for.. it will go to "they have adv to make money"

·

Hey, @cicisaja.

sorry logging in on dpoll is such a pain on your phone. Your answer has been duly noted. :)

So, basically, since they went ahead and have advertising everywhere on Steemit now, there's no reason for them to do anything else, even though it doesn't look like they've ever done it. That's what I wonder about. Why haven't they ever done it? Could it have helped them avoid the situation they are in now? I don't know.

Voted for

  • Steemit would just take curation away from the rest of us if they did that.
·

Hey, @vimukthi.

Thanks for the answer.

I've read that in comments before, but I've never seen a post or some kind of study where it was proven. It seems to be a common thought by folks, but as far as I know, it's not been tested, as to just how much that would be. I went looking for posts and of course, didn't find anything. So, I understand the more upvotes that take place, the more rewards that can be redirected. But just how much would it be, and would there not be a net benefit to in author rewards? Those are the questions I have when it comes to this.

·
·

Actually the amount of rewards stays the same. When a large account vote a larger portion of the reward is allocated. Think there is a (reward) pool and everybody is talking out water by spoons and one guy comes with a huge backed. The big guy will move a lot more water.