You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit's Hard Fork 17. The Witnesses are Planning a Whale Smorgasbord and Plan to make it Look like generosity!!
@ebryans: while I respect you, before accusation, please make the numbers right.
@ebryans: while I respect you, before accusation, please make the numbers right.
Thank you for your comment and engagement in this discussion @abit. I am grateful to you for your willingness to see a good and well-researched interaction on these issues. Respect to you.
Please be assured that my observations do not carry personal accusations, though I can see why you might read my title and opening sentences as such. I apologise for any offence caused. They are observations upon a post made by @mvandeberg on github, entitled Steem Simplicity 0.17.10.
In terms of getting my numbers right, I would be very grateful if you could tell me which numbers I have wrong and, should you be unable to furnishing the right ones, where I could source the corrections I need to make.
I took the HF17 numbers from the github post. Perhaps, there is something which I am missing?
Thanks again for joining in. It is very much appreciated. Namaste.
Numbers are in the links. And a little math.
HF16:
9.5% new token will be created in the first year.
75% of them is content related rewards.
25% of the 75% goes to curators, and 75% of the 75% goes to authors.
HF17:
Among the 75% of 75%, 38% goes to comments and 62% goes to root posts.
Thank you very much @abit for your corrections of my numbers. I apologise for getting it wrong before. It was by no means intended! The wording of the document is not the easiest to follow. I am not sure where the 9.5% token comes into play ...
Maybe I should explain any changes!
Therefore, this is my understanding:
The distribution % is slightly different. It does not however, affect the capability of whales to hijack the rewards pool. There will be bot posts, bot comments and bot voting on an unprecedented scale.
All I have here is a tiny influence on the way in which votes are counted and valued.
I do not have an answer to the invitation to rort the system.
While @abit's numbers are correct in a sense, 25% (of the 75%) does not actually go to curators. 25% is only a maximum and the actual amount is significantly lower (due to the reverse auction). I've seen 12% but I can't confirm that is accurate.