Draining the rewards pool - The Numbers

in stats •  2 years ago

It's an ominous phrase, but does it mean anything???

Is there any basis in fact?

What would it take to drain the reward pool?

IMG SOURCE

Well first you need to look at the composition of the reward pool. (this will change over time but the basic principles and baselines will remain roughly the same)

I ran through the trending page right down to the very end to determine its composition:

\$150-\$175 bracket - 4 posts
\$100-\$150 bracket - 4 posts
\$ 50-\$100 bracket - 10 posts

\$ 25-\$ 50 bracket - 50 posts

\$ 20-\$ 25 bracket - 40 posts
\$ 15-\$ 20 bracket - 60 posts

\$ 10-\$ 15 bracket - 50 posts
\$ 5-\$ 10 bracket -160 posts
\$ 1-\$ 5 bracket - 90 posts

I have ignored posts under \$1 for this exercise as when added together they only amount to less than \$100

In total the reward pool for the time that I was performing this exercise amounts to roughly \$7 500

In that case then its a simple breakdown:

Roughly:
20 posts > \$50 = 25% of reward pool
50 posts \$25 - \$50 = 25% of reward pool
100 posts \$15 - \$25 = 25% of reward pool
300 posts < \$15 = 25% of reward pool

So here we have the cold hard rounded off numbers of how the reward pool is currently structured. These percentages and numbers should be reasonably accurate for any given day, although the exact numbers will vary given the fluctuations in the reward pool size as the market cap of STEEM fluctuates.

So now that the numbers are out, lets work out exactly how many posts of what value range would it require to significantly "drain the rewards pool" and by what amount. i.e. when does the effect become really noticeable to every user.

Is it 1%, 5%, 10% 25% even 50%??? Lets discuss it in the comments.

Sort Order:

I pose these questions, because the first time real divisiveness entered this community was in debates over retroactively applying changes.

The whales were split and have remained divided since then due to the bad blood that was created and spilled then.

The sad thing about it all, was that when the real numbers were eventually out, it was discovered that the whole unpleasantness was initiated by what turned out to be very slight differences or as it was put at the time "arguing over chump change"

·

Can you elaborate more on that , I'm still very much unrelated to the politics here.

I like that you jotted this down, I feel like rewards being spread out more. Although this wasn't necessarily the question you were asking.

I'll let others do the maths on this. I'm supposed to be working :)

I was just discussing with someone how post rewards of under 2c get rounded down to nothing. It might encourage new users if they made something when they got a few votes, even if it's 0.1c. This would not significantly affect the larger rewards. I know it's just how whale votes are valued, but I'd like to see a more even spread of rewards.

I'd hope that as the number of users rises the Steem price will go up, so we'll still see reasonable rewards.

·

Yes indeed! It is very disheartening to have received a good many upvotes on a post only to end up with 0.00 reward.

·
·

I know what you mean @kurtbeil I dont think the price will drop unless something really bad happens.

·
·
·

exactly

It isn't even clear what the phrase means. The reward pool is 'drained' at a more or less constant rate every day.

I guess when you earn, from my perspective it is being drained and vice versa.

·

It is a very misleading term. A lot of people who say it are probably aware of how it works, but many people don't know that the pool 'drains' at the same rate regardless of who gets paid what.

I think what people probably mean in the context of the discussion would be better described as "hogging the rewards pool".

·
·

Don't let others bother your skills. They are weak in themselves when they see others grow. We should always try to work on to our own behavior and get better than others. Success is always on hardwork not on jealousy.
Thank you for the information.

·

Cheers !

Common Sense Prevails! Thank You .

·

Thank You.

Good post. Thanks for assembling this data! It really helps put the numbers in perspective :)
(Resteemed)

There is no such thing (anymore) like draining the reward pool.... Thanks for illustrating it.

·

The balance is getting better, but still not likely optimal... but then again what will optimal be?

·
·

Defining optimality is a matter of taste. My impression is that the SP share of the non-whale people increases. Even if not optimal, this is good :)

@gavvet due to your binning methodology I think some may be suspect. Can you get us the source data?

·

Masteryoda used to pull these types of stats daily with a script, try see if he is still around.

·

He got his data by literally sitting at his computer and counting the posts he found on Steemit.com.

·
·

Correct, as the pool is actually constantly being drained and simultaneously being filled, any snapshot in time will be obsolete a minute later...

I just did a very basic manual snapshot to get a baseline that is likely to be close to the norm on any given day, withing a degree or two of variance.

·
·

@biophil, if I'm coming across as denigrating his effort and work, that was not my intent. I always upvote any "steem" data published on the blockchain. I just think his conclusions are suspect because of his variable binning size. If he could publish the source data then I could do my own analysis. I would even pay for it for the source data.

·
·
·

If you're paying for data, I may be able to help you out. :) What sounds like nice data? A list of all current pending payouts of active posts?

·
·
·
·

Let me reply later. I'm going to one the kids bday dinner. Are you on chat?

·
·
·
·
·

Yeah, you can reach me there. I'm on sporadically.

·
·
·
·

@biophil how much for a list of all current payouts of active posts that have less than 30 days to payout

·
·
·
·
·

Oh, how's 50 steem sound?

·
·
·
·

How about ones day of data and the script for 10 Steem?

·
·
·
·
·

I bet you'll find someone on chat willing to do it at that price, but honestly the price I first quoted was already pretty near my indifference point.

Thank you for those numbers @gavvet!

·