You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Day Of Whale Abstinence Will Answer The Question!
What will happen is that the bigger dolphins will have whale-like power (although somewhat less because the big dolphins are more than the whales). So we'll still have the whale effect, but the effect will be present through the biggest dolphins...
In a sense this is how it is happening already because the largest SP-holding account which is of ultra-whale status doesn't curate... and a few very large SP accounts don't curate either - so the few whales at the top who do actively curate get more power.
There is never a power vacuum in a system of fixed reward pool. Someone has to give those rewards out. And those who are idle leave the power to those who are active (always starting at the top).
But
the difference between whales and dolphins is larger than difference between Dolphins and minnows.
the influence is exponential so small differences have big impacts
Dolphins made their way through posting and curating so may like different types of post.
this what the platform will look like in the future
I think (3) is where the main difference will be due to a multifaceted approach to content that is lacking when 5-10 people decide (although I think they are also rewarding things that they are not genuinely interested at - but understand that others do... For example a whale may not be interested in recipes or photography but they may hit a few votes there too - to encourage diverse content for the good of the platform).
Then (2) - more rewards for bloggers, but smaller. As for (4) we'll see :D
I'm confused ... do you think it's a good idea or not?
I don't think much will change to be honest because the old whales that will not be participating will be replaced by the next most powerful users.
Some think that the whales give them the reward. In reality the whale does not hand out 100$ bills. The system does. The whale just tells the system that the reward pool should be allocated to users A, B, C. If the whale is not here, then someone else will have to allocate the reward pool. At that point, the most influential persons will be those who are mini-whales or mega-dolphins, which will be directing how the reward pool will be split. It's not much different really.
I get all that, but the difference would be of course that the votes will come from a whole lot of dolphins, rather than a small group of whales ... which should give better results.
instead 30 people deciding everything, there would be a 1000 people making the decisions ...
A negative result is still a result.
I'm all for the experiment. I see very little possible harm here, other than one day of forfeited curation rewards by whales. We can afford it.
There is also the recharge factor. One day idle = recharging... so whales who sit out get to recharge their voting (if they spent more and earned more, the day(s) before).
super! but the problem is that if you do corroborate and maybe some other, there are still whales who won't..in which case, you will come back too and so on. We need everyone to be on the same page, how can we convince all >500kSP holders?
Everyone keeps talking about fixed reward pool, but go follow masteryoda and get your head on straight. The amount of SBD handed out daily is NOT constant.
That's to be expected because the reward pool is actually coded as a fixed percentage of the new Steem produced. If the value of Steem is lower, the SBDs are lower.
The reward pool is fixed in terms of Steem - however the value of that Steem may fluctuate. If Steem goes 10x, SBD payouts rise 10x.
I believe there are other factors involved in that algorithm. All I know is that there is not a fixed amount of which your vote is a percentage. Your vote will be worth the same amount of SBD (mine is 2 or 3 cents, depending on the day and the post, sometimes it's more if the post already has a decent expected payout) whether the whales vote at full power, or not.