I just don't understand....above you show that more people are rewarded with the 0.8.2 algo which doesn't require changing the rules prior to 24th June. Why are you supporting the 0.8.3 algo? Either way the whales win so it can't be about that. If you've debated this heavily....then it can't be clear what the best option is from a moral or steem standpoint. So why not take the option where more people are rewarded, where the rules people were operating against are observed and people trying to contribute honestly (like me) don't get caught in the middle? All i'm asking for is a clear explanation because ultimately, form a certain perspective, i might as well have not contributed half my content, let alone curated to the extent i did.
I have a desire to see the most people get the most benefit. In this case the decision is based on principles not outcomes with an eye toward growing the size of the pie rather than fighting over how to divide today's slice.
The impact of compromising values is to lose many heavily invested individuals. Losing these individuals means losing market cap and ultimately lowering everyone's future rewards dramatically.
Dan, my trust in you, the fact that i'm not alone and that i truly love this platform is the only reason i'm not inconsolable right now. I don't mind sacrifice. I just didn't understand the why. Now i'm starting to....i'll have to be pragmatic along with the others. In my own way, I was trying to defend the integrity of steemit as well as my 'reward.' That's it now. I'm going to give myself a slap and get on with it. There are content creators that need my votes :)
Please read my steem apology
This is actually a very interesting point and not one that has been clearly stated before.
All of the comparisons we've seen between algorithms are comparing SP with SP. But this is not a valid comparison because SP on one fork is not an identical asset to SP on a different fork. As such they don't necessarily have the same market value. Of course, we don't know in advance what those values will be, but ignoring the difference altogether causes the analysis to be incorrect.
Looking toward maximizing the market cap (and, assuming no total supply change, equivalently the value of the SP unit), at least as one consideration, makes a lot of sense.
It isn't really a significantly greater number of people. It is 159 accounts with a non-negligible gain, a significant number of which can reasonably easily be identified as: a) bots, b) people (including the largest known whale) holding more than one account, c) people who even larger losses on a different account. Just because the rest can't be so easily identified as being in one of these categories, doesn't mean a good number of them aren't as well.
I support the idea of wider distribution of rewards, but this just wasn't it (and maybe that will be an issue going forward with the same algorithm too, or maybe not, we will have to see). I hope to organize a pool funded by the largest beneficiaries of the original algorithm to voluntarily spread out some the initial rewards to a much larger number of active early-adopter users. Even if no one else wants to participate I will likely do some of this on my own, but I will contribute more if others are on board too.
Those 159 accounts are, even when you substract the a) b) and c)s, >10% of the active userbase. How would you define significant?
Bots get more with the new algo because they curate more. The only reason they're not getting much with the old algo is their smaller stake in single accounts. The same reason all the minnows lose with the way that's been decided, no matter how hard they worked.
0.8.2 is the full retroactive version. This caused trouble, some of the losing parties even threatened to leave and continually dump the steem markets with their funds. It's probably better to give in to that, than risking the whole project's future for a slightly better distribution.
Thank you for your candor pharesim. Although, I'm totally confused now. I guess i never really understood the curation mechanism or the full implications as it changed.....i just enjoyed voting. As you can see, i'm no whale and risked much on VP. Clearly greater forces have been at work and i just have to accept the situation. I don't hear others agreeing with me, which must mean the others affected are all in agreement.
You're not a whale but your SP is much larger than the bulk of the new users who were recruited to sign up via Facebook, etc. You are also a successful blogger here, and will receive, I suspect, a nice overall reward payout on July 4 along with daily rewards if you continue to contribute and get votes. Overall, the idea of the algorithms (both of them) is to encourage people to do exactly what you are doing which is vote for the good stuff. There are secondary considerations such as encouraging concentration of SP into single accounts rather than breaking it up (because the former means an individual identity with reputation rather than a bunch of suck puppets) but that is not something a typical, non-abusing user with a single account would ever really need to consider. Thank you for your contributions, BTW, I've enjoyed a number of your thoughtful posts and comments.
Thank you smooth