You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF 19- The Clu$terf*ckening and Unintended Consequences
So riddle me this. How will going down to 10 big votes help minnows get more bites? That may not be everybody's primary desire. But that's what I want to see and that's what my 500 Discordians in PALnet want to know. And I'm honored to have you on my wall. So you can replay however and whenever you want :)
The 40 vs. 10 votes is less of a 'whale' vs. 'minnow' change as it is a "casual user" vs. "power user" change. For those of us that are heavily involved in the site (we spend hours a day here, we use tools that let us form curation trails, we are part of guilds, etc.) - it isn't that hard to spend 40 votes per day. For a casual user though (someone who pops in and spends an hour browsing when they get home from work) they probably aren't going to find 40 things to vote on per day. They are going to leave a lot of their voting power on the table 'unspent'. By changing the threshold down to 10, it is basically allowing users who aren't as hardcore to still be able to use their full influence as they see fit.
This is exactly why I call this the unintended consequences HF. You're going to fix a curation problem worth 12% and with the changes will equate to 2% of the rewards pool or less while drastically altering the rewards pool worth 72% and shove a huge majority of that into 15-20 people.
There is a premise in your analysis that all of a sudden a majority of the voting stake is going to start going to a subset of popular authors. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it is a prediction in user behavior that is impossible to know. It could very well go the other way too.
Tim. I have to work 2 weeks to make $2800. As a whale I can in 1 click make that in the new scheme. This is going to take exactly 0.03 seconds to explode posts that were already trending at 3k
I don't think that is accurate. Whale votes are likely going to add less to rewards under the new formula (even with 4x) than they are today.
Those casual users that vote fewer times create less value. Limiting the ability to create value to the lowest common denominator kills the ability to create value.
Why limit votes at all? If I spend the time to make 100 votes, didn't I create value with those votes?
I don't see value in funneling wealth to the already wealthy and skipping the content creators. I see value in creating a platform that increases in value, this adding wealth to the wealthy who have invested in the platform.