The Whale Voting Experiment Explained (including downvotes from @abit)

in steem •  3 years ago  (edited)

There are many people in the community that feel strongly that the current distribution of stake is preventing the platform from scaling to billions of users. There is pretty much no incentive for a 'regular user' to buy SP, because even a relatively large investment of a few thousand dollars does not provide practically any influence.

Figuring out a way to make the platform more appealing to 'regular users' to invest is really a key issue that needs to be solved if we all want our stake to grow in value.

The million dollar question is how do you achieve this in a way that is fair to the original stakeholders, and does not open the doors to abuse. Here is a post with some thoughts on the subject: Would you be willing to give up some of your influence, in exchange for earning additional interest on your balance above 250 MV?

The initiative that @abit is doing is an agreement with many of the whales to not vote for a period of time, as an experiment to see what happens when the dolphins+minnows get more influence. It is an experiment. It is not the solution to the problem.

The experiment will only work though if all the whales participate. If only some whales abstain from voting, and others continue to vote - then the ones who continue to vote will just have way more influence. The only solution to this is to convince them to stop voting, or to counter their upvotes with downvotes.

If the experiment helps the community to reach a consensus on a solution to the stake/voting issue, then it will be doing everyone a great service. We need to figure this out / get this right in order for the platform to scale.

IMO, one of the bigger problems of the experiment is lack of communication, so I am trying to help out with that.


I am not running the experiment, and I am not personally involved. Everything below is just personal views, observations, and opinions.

What is the goal of the experiment?

Based on my understanding, it is to try and see what happens if the whales do not vote and the dolphins+minnows get to control the rewards pool.

How long will the experiment last?

I don't know.

Isn't all the downvoting going to be bad for the platform?

The goal is not to have to downvote. If whales do not upvote, then the other whales will not have to downvote to counter.

The experiment will only work though if all the whales participate. If only some of the whales participate, then with the n^2 voting algorithm - it will just give the whales who do vote a ton more power. The experiment only works if none of the whales are voting.

Are the whales still allowed to upvote at all?

Yes. If they upvote with an appropriate vote weight so that their upvotes equal that of a dolphin, then the experiment will still work.

Will less rewards be paid out because the whales are not voting?

No. The platform will still pay out the same amount of rewards, regardless of how many/few whales vote. The only difference is that upvotes from dolphins and minnows will now have more influence on where those rewards are allocated.

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:  

now watch out coz when @abit did -100% my top whale was "created" who you have on top now. rest were far below him. lets see how fair this experiment is ;)

I got -68 vote from @abit yesterday on a post. Can anybody explain what that means?

@timcliff, thanks for the effort to at least try to clarify what's currently going on. In general, I appreciate your efforts to put some of the technical underpinnings of Steemit into non-technical terms for those of us who are primarily content creators and little else.

Your post (and need to make it) suggests we have a certain lack of communication between the developers/Steemit and the users. There's a lot of "black box" type stuff that seems to happen, and the community only finds out about it post-fact. It's not that people need to know about technical details... but there's a danger people losing confidence. If you think about it, in the earliest days of Facebook, Zuckerberg was actually quite active in user forums interacting with the community over development stuff. Same with Tom at MySpace. Same on several other long lived user-generated content venues.

Sure, experiments have to happen... changes get made... and maybe the decentralized format adds extra communication challenges precisely because there is not a centralized repository of plans and actions. In the current case, I think a lot of people felt in the dark as to whether this was an actual "Steemit experiment" or just abit running some stuff to see what would happen. I'd like to think we're all onboard and trying to go in the same direction... but is someone actually driving the bus?

It was a collective decision among several of the whales. It is not my place to say who is/isn't involved.

I could be wrong on this, but based on the fact that at least 50% of the whales need to stop voting in order for it to work, I believe there is buy-in from more than 50% of the whales.

but is someone actually driving the bus

Would it be scary if I said no? ;)

It's a decentralized bus, and everyone gets a steering wheel the size of their stake.

Hehe, yes. Exactly!

Yeah, makes sense.

No, not scary... but I just can't stop thinking about what happens when you blow up a balloon and then set it free to fart it's way around the room in a totally uncontrolled pattern until all the air is gone...

@neoxian's reply (just above yours) is pretty awesome :)

As I stated on @mynameisbrian's post:

I honestly don't see the point of this "experiment." We already know how non-whale voting is affected when whales don't vote. We know in theory and in actuality.

The only purpose that this "experiment" could serve is where the non-whale votes are going. However, given the amount of automation - largely due to past rewards history of users and the build-up of their followings - we have a very good approximation of where the bulk of the votes will go. And unless the "experiment" is run on a test platform that excludes/mitigates such voting, there's no way to accurately gauge active user interests.

There are several other issues with this "experiment" that will skew any results, including the fact that the "counter" voting is completely arbitrary - regarding both the weight of the votes and the accounts being voted on.

So, what we're left with is: GIGO.

The only thing we'll know for sure about this "experiment" is that many users will be upset about the arbitrary flagging. But we already knew about this as well.

If we want a "fairer" distribution of influence/rewards, the first thing that can be done - that actually had widespread support - is to adjust the n^2 rewards curve...which has been excluded in the next hard fork. Instead, the dev team has decided to plow ahead with more contentious changes. This "experiment" really serves no purpose and will only result in more of the same wrong-headed thinking, in my opinion.

I think most/all of the people who are doing the experiment are in favor of changing n^2 to a more linear function.

That's irrelevant to any of the points I made. This "experiment" will provide no valuable data. It will only irritate users - mostly the ones receiving the flags. We don't need to run a test to figure that out.

It will only irritate users - mostly the ones receiving the flags.

If the whales who are still upvoting stop upvoting with their full stake, then there will be no downvotes.

This "experiment" will provide no valuable data.

I disagree.

If the whales who are still upvoting stop upvoting with their full stake, then there will be no downvotes.

You must not have seen the trending page today.

The experiment has not been fully running for 24 hours yet.

[Edit] no downvotes as a result of the experiment.

There are posts on the trending page with whale votes from today.

Yes, I know / agree. It will probably take at least 24 hours to get to the point that enough whales either stop voting, or are countered.

On a related note - I'm going to conduct my own experiment.

Will there be zero communication between you, your scientists and the experimentees prior to said experiment? If so, it just may be the perfect shitstorm. Hahaha ;)

cue @mynameisbrian to collect this thought for new comic idea

There will be no details. I might let everyone know when it concludes. And just so everyone is aware - my reasons for doing this are subjective and my criteria is completely arbitrary.

Lol! Sounds promising.

Satire rules!

I don't understand why this experiment is being conducted. The source code of Steemit is open for everyone to see. We all KNOW what happens when all whales decide to stop voting. Why do we need an experiment to find out about something we already know?

We all KNOW what happens when all whales decide to stop voting.


Well, the votes of minnows and dolphins count more. Surprise! ;-)

That is true. There are other factors to consider too though - the price of STEEM, user engagement, curation rewards for dolphins/minnows. If anything, the experiment should be fun for the 'little people' once the drama over all the downvotes settles.

  • Why is it important in the long run to figure out how "whales not voting" affects the price? How do you make sure any change in price is not wrongly considered a correlation? For example: We are experiencing a hard-fork right now. The price is going up. Because of the experiment or because of the hard-fork? Well, we don't know and never will...
  • In terms of user engagement, we see more and more people posting memes instead of high-quality content as they tend to get more rewards for those little funny things without getting votes from whales. On the other hand, we see some people leaving angrily
  • Curation rewards for minnows and dolphins will go up for sure. Once again, no need to perform an experiment on that

The worst developments I see are that people disliking the experiment are currently being silenced by just tagging them as drama queens, naysayers, whiners, etc... and the fact that there hasn't been any communication about this experiment with normal users beforehand.

Amen to that! The whales can vote in whatever fashion they want and I'm free to express my opinion about the senselessness of this experiment. Isn't this the beauty of Steemit?

Valid concerns. I don't disagree. At the end of the day though, it is the whales' SP, and they are allowed to vote with it as they please.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

I am all for working on the voting allocation, and I understand what he was trying to do.

From the end user's point of view, it was a bad idea.

If he felt it was necessary he could have announced it first. He could have set some real criteria.

He can use his stake how he wants, and flagging is just downvoting... blah, blah. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

If SteemIt is at all interested in building a happy user-base, they really need to consult with some people who care more about people than technology. People who understand human nature and all of that.

I agree 100% it should have been announced first. The goal is for him not to have to downvote though. It is basically up to the other whales to decide if they want to 'play along' with the experiment.

Sorry Tim, I respect you greatly. He didn't let the other whales decide. He decided.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

There was a lot of conversation in private slack and other channels with the other whales. Not everyone was contacted though, which is an issue. There are a lot more whales involved than just @abit though. [Edit] I am not 100% sure on this, but I believe more than 50% of the whales are participating.

Thanks for being cool about it, Tim!
Hopefully things will pan out for the better.

If so, these downvoted posts are getting 5 votes at -3% when they haven't even accumulated a $1 payout...this is going to start affecting people's rep scores if it isn't fixed.

I'm all good with tests, but there was clearly zero communication within the "testers" community.

I agree communication was an issue. That's why I created this post.

Are there examples of posts getting flagged below zero? It was my understanding that they were trying to make sure that the downvotes did not affect rep scores.

Are Smooth, Bernie, and his alt accounts also doing this? I'm seeing multiple downvoted posts that are an hour or so old that have yet to have a whale vote. (Other than whale bots(?) voting at very low percentages. i.e., created, wang, summon, etc.)

I believe so.

Below zero? Nope, not yet. Haha

Like I said, I'm totally down with this experiment and I fully understand the "whys" and "hows"...just wish there would have been better communication between the whales and the community. A lot of people are bummed because it was sudden and unexpected - add that to the fact that a few of them finally had decent payouts and it can cause a bit of a disruption in the force. Lol

Agreed 100% that the communication was bad. Hoping my post will help :)

As long as the payouts do not go below zero, then it will not hurt the user's rep score.

Steemit is getting harder and harder to onboard friends. @smooth and @abit are causing people to quit the platform.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

Enjoy your new rep.

Not sure why you flagged me, but have one right back.

He bought a lot yesterday. Be careful. He will buy more then flag you to negative. :)

That's my sales tactic to boost the price of steem. ;)

Steemit seems to be becoming more and more toxic by the day, thanks to a few SP holders having SP proportional to the size of their egos.

Steemit is becoming a masochistic organism and it's sad to watch. I see a slow death, not yet inevitable, but momentum is on the wrong side.

I quit because of all these wars. Flag him flag her - insults and confusion. It's like catholics against baptists arguing. Who would want to read that Bible or join either church.

@htooms your voting power is too low now. You voted too many times today. Remember there is a limitation of around 40 full-weighted votes everyday, no matter upvotes or downvotes. I myself has run out of voting power as well. I'd like to suggest that you power up a new account, then your downvotes will be more powerful.

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

I see this post was exempted from the experiment.

Edit: Ok, looks like it got the treatment too.

It will probably be 24 hours before it gets to the point that everything is canceled out. A lot will slip through the cracks before then. The whales that are countering other whales upvotes are building lists of other whales that need to be countered. I believe they are focusing on the posts with the highest payouts first.

My latest post has must less votes then yours. I received a vote from @created and got downvote whale love. This post was voted by @created and has not. If you are going to run an experiment, you need to be consistent.

I'm not blaming you or anything, but I'm just saying the lack of consistency looks bad and @created is already on their list

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

[Edit] @created was added to the downvote list after it had voted on my post. I have no issues if anyone wants to downvote the post.

The post has now been downvoted :)

Yea, sorry man. I didn't mean to be "that guy". I'll give you some upvotes...

No worries :)

I'm not sure the experiment will do much but make dolphins the new whales and whales who don't participate mega whales.

Besides everyone knows the conditions are temporary and artifical so will adjust their behaviours (posting and voting habits) accordingly.

I'd rather something along the lines of what you're advocating being implemented in a fork (the platform limiting vests for upvoting to a certain amount & compensating larger stake holders with interest). That kind of experiment would yield meaningful results.

Making the dolphins the new whales (temporarily) is essentially the purpose of the experiment from what I understand. The whales who don't participate are being countered by other whales downvotes.

As far as implementing something like this as a HF, that would be a huge and extremely controversial change. A lot more data (via experiments like this) would be needed before making a change that significant to the actual platform.

Also, if this was a long-term thing, that wouldn't work either. If whales are able to power down, and then power up lots of little accounts - they could still act as whales and go unnoticed.

Counter voting for the purpose of this experiment is a terrible idea. As most authors won't get the memo nor care, they'll just see the downvotes and the zapping of rewards that could have been.

I'm not sure what the data of dolphins being the new whales will show. It certainly wouldn't show the likely impact of limiting voting vests.

But oh well... let's see how this pans out.

This is one in a long list...but is precisely the most obvious point. It also makes a mockery of the initial premise. Wtf is sp for if our community promotes people with more than someone else flagging others legitimate content?

Either upvote it or not.
This experiment will not even provide us with an untainted dataset!

There is a separate conversation to be had about downvoting in general. Even without this experiment, there are tons of users that are downvoting to counter other people's votes. (Dan is doing it, Bernie is doing it, Smooth is doing it..)

There is still a lot of disagreement over it, but the general consensus is that anyone is allowed to upvote/downvote however they chose. It is their SP, and if they want to use it to cancel someone else's vote - that is entirely within their right as a SP holder.

This experiment will not even provide us with an untainted dataset

I do not know what the goals of the experiment are. I would imagine that after all the dust settles from the initial drama over people getting downvoted, the dolphins and minnows may actually enjoy the platform quite a bit more for the duration of the experiment. Personally, I like how my upvote can actually make a few cents of difference now.

I know it's been said before, but this would be a lot different conversation if this was something permanent. Obviously this would not be fair to the main stakeholders of the platform, and I suspect most of them would power down and either cash out, or power up a bunch of little accounts to get around it.

Since it is a temporary experiment, I see the potential harm as fairly minimal.

See my post tonite on all this, it is also in this list of comments. Nite guys

I'm not sure the experiment will do much but make dolphins the new whales

This is a big move. because theres a lot of dolphins. If there were a ton of whales, concentration wouldn't be a huge problem like it is now.

@nanzo-scoop, your comment is 100% my thoughts. :)

Wow. This guy gets it. This "experiment" cannot even be called an experiment because it has biased itself out the gate.

Abit doesnt understand this. Unfortunately so.

You really do a great job of explaining what's going on, thank you

Welcome :)

Well... I up voted your post. Usually I'm lucky if I manage to toggle a vote $0.01. I managed to take your post from $7.85 to $7.99 so that is a first. It could have been that other people voted or the price fluctuated but bumping a post by $0.14 is definitely a first for me.

I've notice my upvotes have more of an effect as well. From the perspective of a dolphin, this is definitely a fun experiment! I expect it will increase quite significantly within the next 24 hours. There are still a lot of active posts with whale upvotes. Once those are no longer in play, the dolphins' stake will have a lot more weight.

I want to see what happens, Steemit is in beta!

haha -- there is always something going on, here on Steemit. I go away for a few days and come back to this commotion. I remind myself that this Steemit platform is just an experiment to grow the underlying blockchain. Good luck with the experiment, everyone! I guess I better make a post or two, to help create some data points, lol. Thanks for the explanation, @timcliff. It sped up my understanding of what's going on, for sure!

Thank you for helping us to understand. Very confusing.

@timcliff thanks for letting the community understand the brokered agreement and the method behind the madness.

I grimace (like right before leaning into a right hook) with anticipation of the flood of posts coming to trending page about flagging (yet again) upvoted ad nauseum to nosebleed levels by dolphins and minnows.

I do appreciate what you do for the community, my friend.

Thank you very much Mr. @timcliff for keeping us informed, I hope this is better for the platform and the users.

Welcome. I agree :)

First of all, I just want to say that I love you @timcliff
You are definitely in my top 5 favorite witness list because you are so very community focused. I completely understand the experiment. I understand the need to do such things. And after reading the comments (on several posts including this one) about it, we all know that communication was severely lacking.

I wonder how hard it would have been to put a red banner at the top of the page stating that we are experimenting and neutralizing flags may be in effect. This would at least give everyone an opportunity to say screw it, I'm posting anyway / I'll stick to curating / I'll see you when the red banner disappears.

I can deal with red banner days. As I mentioned on @abit's post - I'll fall on a few flags if it's going to help the platform -- but I'd like to know ahead of time. It's just an idea.

It's a good suggestion. Unfortunately we can't really put something up on Steemit's website for a community run experiment.

If the communication had been better handled to start with, it probably would have gone a lot smoother.

Since it's already done/started, the best we can do now is to try and get the word out.

What's unfortunate is that the dolphins and minnows probably really would have enjoyed this experiment if there wasn't all the negativity surrounding the flags. Hopefully we can get past that and enjoy the party :)

Well, you already know how I feel about flags. I have noticed my upvotes being worth more and that's fun to see the earnings jump more than usual. I'm concerned about the negative impact on the psyche. It's one thing to go willingly into the lion's cage. It's a completely different mindset when you feel like you've unintentionally fallen in a trap. I'm kind of scoping the feed to see who's freaking out and trying to keep them engaged.

Honestly, you lost me right here, because none of this was set up right, nothing was announced to all of us as stakeholders, so this is a fail. Despite you being such a nice guy and very smart! No vote, whales only opinions, no dates, I could go on.

It is an experiment. It is not the solution to the problem.

The experiment will only work though if all the whales participate. If only some whales abstain from voting, and others continue to vote - then the ones who continue to vote will just have way more influence. The only solution to this is to convince them to stop voting, or to counter their upvotes with downvotes.

Maybe my post today really did ruffle feathers. Content creators and daily active users need to be consulted, rewarded and without that -- nobody will onboard in the thousands, with the issues, let alone the billions with this great thing @ned and @dan have built which is kind of beautiful.....

My vote just shot up to 5 cents!!!

I am all for it if it works. I think we need outside the box thinking to get people more enthused about the platform.

Right on! It should go up even more as more whales stop voting + are canceled out. Also, it will have an even greater effect if you upvote a 'good' post that already has quite a few dolphin/minnow votes on it.

Exactly. I think this is an exciting development. I can sympathise with people who may be feeling bad about it but it may help us all in the longterm by making lower value accounts feel more like they are a part of things.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
So I guess this post wasn't flagged because it's explaining the experiment? My vote has more weight which is cool but flags hurt rep don't they?

  ·  3 years ago (edited)

So I guess this post wasn't flagged because it's explaining the experiment?

It will probably be 24 hours before it gets to the point that everything is canceled out. A lot will slip through the cracks before then. The whales that are countering other whales upvotes are building lists of other whales that need to be countered. I believe they are focusing on the posts with the highest payouts first.

flags hurt rep don't they

Only if they decrease the total votes to a negative rscore. As long as the post is making something (even a non-negative 'zero') then the user's reputation will not go down.

Thanks for explaining this all!


Never knew steem had such drama, only see super drama in ETH or bitcoin side. Grabbing popcorn.


I'm OK with this experiment in general. Getting flagged for some period from a whale is something we can manage. This will not stop me from posting.
The problem is that with a downvote the reputation of the author is also going down. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It only goes down if the post is downvoted below a 0.00 payout. As long as the post makes something then the net effect on the user's reputation is still up instead of down.

Thank you for this explaination.

Welcome :)

I think this is a valid experiment. Some of us may make less, but other may get a lot more and I can understand if they were discouraged by mostly making nothing.

Hey this is my new whale account. Since i have this account and no "whales" have voted...i am now a "whale" with a different account :)

This is becoming more amusing than anything.

Hehe, I'm glad you see it that way.

Sorry bro. I dont mean to be an asshole on any of this. However they did really fail hard on this. Lol.
Its ok though. We learn from this that next time we need to do it right :)

No worries. IMO the communication part really sucked. At the very least if all the whales had been contacted ahead of time, and there was a heads up to the community as far as what they were doing and why - it would have gone a lot smoother.


Very interesting. Thank you for the update.



why some whales didn't stop voting?

The whales have been discussing among themselves, and trying to get the word out - but not everybody has been contacted. Also, some whales probably did get contacted but decided to fight it.

ohhh thank you very much! One more question, if I can. Why did they flag posts with rewards less tan 1-2$?

I think they are planning to do it purely to counter whale upvotes. If a whale upvotes (which ruins the experiment) then another whale will downvote to counter it. A lot of it is being done automatically by bots.

thank you so much!!!!!!! I highly appreciate your replies!

Thanks for your clarification! :)

Thank you for sharing - while this experiment may hurt many, we need new info about votes distribution.
Obviously, old system with whale voting leads to nowhere, but I don't see what may come in its place. At least, experiments are better than to do nothing .


Thanks for this post @timcliff, I appreciate you sharing this info. We've been discussing it over at Aspiring Steemit Whales & Dolphins and I'm glad you agree the communication between whales, steem devs and us mere content creators is appalling.

Here's to being in beta! Cheers :)

I think that the confusing technology that is cryptocurrency & understanding btc, is probably what is preventing it from being adopted by the masses. Most people have no idea what bitcoin is and the whole password thing on here too probably isn't appealing to them either.

I've recruited quite a few people to the platform who have no experience with cryptocurrency and BTC. I agree the PW thing is a hurdle, but I don't think those things will be dealbreakers.

i myself had none before I came here and I have recruited some as well who didn't have experience with it but still it has been very challenging, despite the success thus far. You are mentioning how it hasn't been MASS ADOPTED well I think that is one of the reasons.

Also, If the main goal is getting new users to come to the site, wouldn't marketing steemit be the best way to get them here?

And who should be responsible for marketing? ...

I see a lot of new users who come on here and who don't want to put in any effort to produce quality content but then they want to complain about unfair rewards. I don't think that Catering to their cries is in the best interest of steemit.

You are mentioning how it hasn't been MASS ADOPTED well I think that is one of the reasons.

Agreed. There are quite a few reasons.

If the main goal is getting new users to come to the site, wouldn't marketing steemit be the best way to get them here?

Yes. I don't know if we are ready for that type of mass recruitment yet though. There are still some underlying issues with the platform that are affecting retention. If we don't resolve those, then recruiting new users will not do much good.

And who should be responsible for marketing?

I think the community itself will be able to handle the lion-share of marketing through word of mouth.

I see a lot of new users who come on here and who don't want to put in any effort to produce quality content but then they want to complain about unfair rewards. I don't think that Catering to their cries doesn't seem like it's something in the best interest of steemit.

I agree 100%. I don't want to cater to those people either.

I had no clue that steem is about currency.. but thought is a social networks with a different approach.
It is a great network with a very unique rewarding system which makes it interesting for curators..
but so far my feeling is it is still relatively complex to handle,
nothing easy going - the PW are still most easy thing.
It is more the dynamics.. the hidden 30 minutes rules, what a resteem does, aso..
I'M not here for the money.. it is a nice sideeffect.. but to see how a system like this can work..

keep up the good work with the post .,.I cant wait to see what steemit have for the future ,.,btw can you follow me thank you

Sounds an awful like Mafia coercion to me. With whales trying to manipulate other whales to their way. There is nothing good about this. As for dolphins show are mainly stuck in the middle creating content, they will be punished for having good content rewarded by a high value account. It creates ill-will from those who find themselves an unwilling participant in this flawed experiment and the sooner it stops the better.

If the experiment succeeds, then the dolphins are the ones that benefit. They will see their influence boosted so that the posts they upvote actually gain significant rewards.

If the experiment succeeds...

It's hard to know what "success" is when we don't even know the purpose of the "experiment" or most of the criteria/parameters involved. With everything being arbitrary - as far as I can tell - and with this likely not being sustainable over any meaningful period of time, how can "success" actually be determined?

And is it "successful" if one of the major results is to piss off a bunch of users or to confuse the shit out of them, like what's actually happening?

Well, most likely you will see the value of your upvotes go up by quite a bit within the next 24 hours. Along with that, your curation rewards. So if nothing else, I'd say just enjoy it.

So far, my curation rewards are down because all of the posts I upvoted today were flagged. And I really don't care if my vote goes from $0.03 to $0.04. The trade-off is not worth it.

If whales want to hold their votes then that is fine, but negating other whales votes is a misguided attempt at manipulation. People don't like to be manipulated and this also goes for the content creators who had no say in taking part in this, but are just being used. Its a failed experiment that was poorly planned and even more poorly executed. The sooner it stops the better.

If the experiment is 'successful' - your upvotes will go up by quite a bit more than that. If you are doing a 'good job' of curating (finding posts that are quality content, which end up getting a lot of upvotes from users after you find it) then you will probably earn more in curation rewards under the new system. Not saying this is the case, but if your only curation strategy was to front-run whales, then in that case you would not do good.

The result of this experiment is quite predictable :

  1. no more 100+$ posts on the trending page
  2. The same numbers of 5$-15$ posts with payouts based on Guilds voting
  3. Lots of posts getting 0.20$ patouts instead of its usuall 0.02$ - 0.10$

You do understand that the blockchain will still pay out the same amount of rewards with the whales abstaining from voting, correct? It is very possible to get to a $100 post if a lot of dolphins vote on the same post.

It is very possible to get to a $100 post if a lot of dolphins vote on the same post.

tecnnicaly yes, but I doubt that would happen.
We'll see )
So far I can see that the reward for my post from yesterday evening went from 0.2 to 0.35 without any extra votes )

I just think its ridiculous that users with excessively large accounts worth upwards to $500K , like abit, take it upon themselves with one downvote to reduce a half a days worth of writing by the casual contributor to a few pennies. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of cultivating new users and contributors? Why don't they stick to downvoting other whales, if that is who their target is?

It is not about taking rewards away from people. One of the biggest issues that has been affecting user retention has been the fact that regular users have no say over the payout of rewards, and the only way to earn is to be one of the lucky ones that a whale pays attention to. The goal of what @abit is doing is to counter the influence from the whales that are still voting, so that the voting from the 'regular' users of the platform actually matter.

  ·  3 years ago Reveal Comment

The post has had 346 views so far, and 325 upvotes (mostly from non-whales). IMO, the current $9.47 payout is actually below what the post would be at if just the dolphins and minnows had voted on it, and the whales had not upvoted + downvoted. Up to you though.

Isn't the simplest way to answer that question.

  1. Draw a line on what is considered a whale.
  2. Calculate the total upvote stake weight, then subtract the amount contributed by those accounts above the line considered a whale. (This is the amount you must effectively downvote)
  3. Apply a definitive downvote equal to the amount worked out above.

/edit 1

There need not be any subjectivity if we are to achieve desirable experimental results.
Experiments must have known and controlled parameters so that we can test the variable(s).
It is my belief, that if we are to conduct this experiment properly, then the line must be drawn clearly, and downvotes applied correctly without subjectivity.

It's a work in progress.

Well said. Thanks.