Can the Data Tell us Why Ned Undelegated so much Steem Power? Steemit Business Intelligence
As fast as it was given it was taken back. That’s right, Ned has undelegated nearly all the Steem Power that he delegate in August.
The lucky steemains @htliao, @linuslee0216, @nicolemoker, @surpassinggoogle, @sweetsssj @tumutanzi and @ramengirl between them received million worth of Steem vests power, which lasted from the 8th August until yesterday
Then, for some reason @ned undelegated all of the Steem Power Except that to @surpassinggoogle.
When the delegation happened, I analysed the voting habits of these steemains before and after receiving the extra power and the findings were very interesting.
If you missed that series of post, you can access them via this link
https://steemit.com/stats/@paulag/how-neds-delegated-power-is-used-part-4-steemit-business-analysis
So why was the delegation removed? Being the data person, I decided to see if the data could shed some light on the situation.
Looking at each of these Steemains I have taken the data from Steemsql held by @arcange
High Level Overview – Votes
For this analysis I have taken the votes made during the period of delegation. The 100% vote worth was taken as the vote worth the day the delegation was made.
Based on these values $457K was rewarded in votes from these steemains, with an average of over 3.9K votes per day. Well ahead with the number of votes per day is @surpassinggoogle, voting X6 more per day than @nicolemoker. We can also see that @surpassinggoogle has an average voting weight of below 4%. Voting over 1300 times a day, this does not surprise me.
In terms of pay-outs, in total @sweetsssj has paid out the most in rewards.
Detailed data on Votes
The pie chart above shows a break down per voter of unique authors voted for. @surprassinggoogle is really spreading the joy reaching over 2925 different authors, or 43% of all the authors voted for with this extra delegated power.
A lot of authors got votes over the 77 days of delegation. The tables below shows the authors rewarded with the most $ with this delegated power
We can see from these tables that a number of authors did rather well from this power. Each voter, except @surpassinggoogle has paid out over $1k to a few authors. In fact the table below shows the % of each voter pay-outs that went to their 10 favourite authors.
Combining all of this data into one chart, it is easy to see who has gained the most on a cumulative basis from this delegation. I am not surprised to see that @surpassinggoogle has not made it to this list.
Take a look at the network chart below. There seems to be 3 clusters. @surpassinggoogle and the people he has voted for, @ramengirl and her votes and then the others that received delegation seem to very much share a lot of authors that have received votes.
Are you surprised yet that @ned undelegated his power?
Transfer Data
Along with voting, I have also taken data on transfers for 2017. I wanted to see if there was a change in trend in the volume and value of transfers.
Looking at the image below, the bar chart on the left shows the number of transfers to each of these steemains. There is a rapid growth in the number of transactions to @sweetsssj and @htliao from August. On the right the bar chart shows the value of the transactions received, and we can see that @tumutanti received considerable more in September than ever before.
To put this in a little more perspectives the table below shows a clear representation of these transfers sorted by the total received, from who is was received and how many transactions made up the total.
I also decided to have a dig through the memos. A considerable volume of transactions to both @sweetsssj and @htliao contain links to post in the memo with nothing else.
Reading the top memo on the table below, it very quickly because clear that @htliao was selling votes
However there were no memos of the same context for @sweetsssj so my next step was to compare the links given in the memo to votes given by @sweetsssj. The table on the right shows transfers to @sweetsssj, who it was from, the amount sent and the link in the memo. The table on the right shows votes given to authors, the value of the vote and the link of the post voted on.
The data clearly shows @sweetsssj was also selling votes.
Within the memo for @htliao were also suggestions that @htliao may be leasing out some power
Delegation Data
So a quick check of the data for delegation and I found that only one of the steemains that received this delegated power, also delegated out power
Rewards Data
Finally I wanted to have a quick look at rewards claimed by each of these steemain, both author rewards and curator rewards
The chart below shows the rewards claimed in vests
So there you have it, the data laid out in a clear way for you to decide why @ned undelegated his power to each of these Steemains except @surprassinggoogle.
Do you thoughts on the above data? please do comment below
I am part of a Steemit Business Intelligence community. We all post under the tag #BIsteemit. If you have an analysis you would like carried out on Steemit data, please do contact me or any of the #bisteemit team and we will do our best to help you...
You can find #bisteemit on discord https://discordapp.com/invite/JN7Yv7j'
I was gonna upvote but some of your conclusions should be more careful. Like @justyy's SP delegation initiative is to help cn minnows and @htliao supports him by 500SP is no dig deal (don't forget they all have their own SP!) or some may consider it a good thing to do so.
One more thing, I know from one of the curators that Ned specifically asked him to curate posts under the cn tag, so it is very normal that their votes do not span across more authors. If you judge their votes by this criteria, it might be misleading and unfair.
Data transparency is the best thing ever, but your analysis and conclusion might be influential, I hope that you can be more careful with that (it's other Steemians' reputation on the line!). Don't come to quick conclusions, let the data speaks for itself and let everyone have their own opinion. Although, Ned, the SP owner, should be the ultimate judge of that.
For the record, I have never ever asked or even hinted these curators to upvote my posts, ever.
Still, I really like your data and thinking. Just hope you can be more careful.
I shouldn't have to be careful - isn't steemit about freedom of speech? and if it is on the block chain then is is not a secret. Why should I be careful saying it as it is? I am sick of pussy footing around Steemit in case I piss people off. There is so much in the data that is 'Obvious' if people would only open their eyes. But say it and I will be downvoted. My career on steemit over
I also never said anything about @htliaos delegation begin a big deal, I just mentioned that it is happening.
By the way, I have received upvotes from some of the people mentioned in this , but like you, I have never asked our hinted that they do so, nor did I pay for a vote.
@paulag I think your reply to @deanliu is a bit harsh, considering she is just reminding you that data needs to be interpreted in context. And it is not about freedom of speech. It's about being careful about all the data that you gather and whether there are factors you have not considered before making conclusions that put others on the line. I think by now there have been a lot of voices pointing out that for example @justyy using the said transfers to help minnows, or evidence that @htliao has ignored rather than sell vote to steemians who tried to buy him. However, these argument and evidence would have been drowned out by the preposition that this article has presented - people already think everyone who was mentioned in the article is guilty. I am not here to say it has or has not happened, but as a person in real life who suffers a lot from data being interpreted out of context, I just want to say be careful, because data speaks the truth, but when you don't have all the data, ie the rest of the context, seemingly correct conclusions can be wrong.
You're exactly what this site needs, @paulag.
Thankyou for your service.
Say it like it is. You have every right to stop pussy footing around. You are what we need: brutal honesty, radical transparency.
Thank you Ms Liu
谢谢 刘前辈^_^
Paula, what a magnificent piece of data mining and analysis! That's part of the beauty of the blockchain-- it's transparent and you can find all this stuff IF you know where to look, and how to retrieve the relevant data.
It doesn't surprise me that @surpassinggoogle comes out on top in the "spreading the wealth" department, which basically translates into "community building" in my eyes.
What a magnificent piece of WRONG data!
Why? See these posts:
I agree! Excellent work by @paulag! And hurrah for @surpassinggoogle -- both fine examples of what's need here in steemit. Bravo!!
@paulag this is lovely I'm happy that @ned is looking deep into this place, For that I am more than happy to say I really love that guy, Steemit is his baby and he is nurturing it so the name won't be tarnished. Thank God the
bad eggsare being brought to justice. I'm glad he could also see the works of @surpassinggoole. All I pray for Terry is Good health, long life and happiness. Even with his daily life he makes out time to help everyone I am so happy he will continue this act of selflessness.I would love to recommend @maryfavour she is a humanitarian, who sponsors people, help the minnows and redfishes. Oh She is indeed a woman of valor, She has made steemit a place to be for everyone and I would love @ned take a look at her project called @redfishpillar . Keep doing the good work @ned and thanks @paulag for this awesome news.
I support this call for @maryfavour to be considered for delegation. To put it in a simple sentence, she's one of the chief guardians of Steemit community; very just in her activities.
I second this, as @maryfavour is a guardian.
I support this call for @maryfavour to be considered for delegation. To put it in a simple sentence, she's one of the chief guardians of Steemit community; very just in her activities.
@sweetestglo-eu I seriously can't agree less with you on this .... I wish a similar statistics can be carried out on @redfishpillar of @maryfavour s account and it will be seen the account should be considered as well to serve steemians well ...
Not really surprised about @surpassinggoogle s record here, Terry is really doing great to all steemians ... I really want to say I big thank you to @paulag for this great analysis he did in this post as this will help to understand how transparent the system is and help to clear the whole messy issue attached to the undelegated SP
@sweetestglo-eu I seriously can't agree less with you on this .... I wish a similar statistics can be carried out on @redfishpillar of @maryfavour s account and it will be seen the account should be considered as well to serve steemians well ...
Not really surprised about @surpassinggoogle s record here, Terry is really doing great to all steemians ... I really want to say I big thank you to @paulag for this great analysis he did in this post as this will help to understand how transparent the system is and help to clear the whole messy issue attached to the undelegated SP
@sweetestglo-eu I seriously can't agree less with you on this .... I wish a similar statistics can be carried out on @redfishpillar of @maryfavour s account and it will be seen the account should be considered as well to serve steemians well ...
Not really surprised about @surpassinggoogle s record here, Terry is really doing great to all steemians ... I really want to say I big thank you to @paulag for this great analysis he did in this post as this will help to understand how transparent the system is and help to clear the whole messy issue attached to the undelegated SP
@ramengirl Has consistently been voting on her own post during the last day.
This was to attract more votes with a reasonably low reward while still self-rewarding at full strength around the end.
This is not how SP is intended to be used, it's intended to be used to give exposure to your post and let the market be the judge of the outcome.
BTW: I'm really not a fan of "superficial Japanese feel good selfies" posts.
hay @transisto - thanks for the input here. I have to admit I self vote, but with the purpose you mention, to give my post that first bit of exposure. My 5 cents wont get me to the trending page thou!
@paulag, I do appreciate your work and the coverage of you analysis. I also like to do this kind of works. I cannot agree with some of your conclusions, but I don't want discuss these today.
You want to speak with data. Therefore, I believe you need to make sure your data are correct.
In this chart, my understanding is, on average, @nicolemoker votes 207 times per day. Is it correct? @surpassinggoogle votes 1,327 times per day, correct?
These numbers does not make sense at all. Assume @surpassinggoogle votes once per minute, he needs 22 hours to finish all the votes.
Please check your data first.
Thanks
lol I like where you are trying to go with this, but this was not a post about bots, and you and I both know the data is correct, unless you are saying someone has the ability to alter the blockchain data?
I think @nationalpark points out a very intersting thing. Steemit is not a full time job even for those who was delegaged huge amount of SP by @ned. Check out this post, and you will know how hard @tumutanzi was working to upvote. https://steemit.com/cn/@justyy/r-tutorial-knowing-when-a-steem-whale-vote-r-steem. We are humans and not bots. You cannot expect human to work 24/7. I believe what @ned needs are human instead of bots. Again, it's better for you to point out all the facts. I don't think anyone is really reading these posts if they upvote too much a day. From what I saw in cn community, @tumutanzi set a very good example for minnows regarding creating good posts. FYI, I did not benefit a lot from those delegated SP and I do not know any of them in person.
At first, I believed @paulag's data and amazed that @surpassinggoogle can vote so many times per day. Then I noticed the chart shows @nicolemoker votes more than 200 times per day on average. This number is definitely wrong. My SQL skill is not that good, but I have common sense and I am very good at analysis. I observed some of the voters before and I checked @nicolemocker's voting before. By no meaning she can vote 200 times per day. I am pretty sure her data have errors, though I don't know why.
I don't agree some of @paulag's conclusions. However, before we can discuss these conclusions, we need to make sure her data are correct. Otherwise, her conclusions are totally baseless.
I only checked average vote per day in the post. I did not check other data. Because these data are not correct, it makes me suspect all the data in this post.
I was surprised @surpassggoogle could vote 22 hours if he vote once per minute. From @paulag's data, my conclusion is that @surpassggoogle used bot to vote. But when saw @nicolemocker's voting time per day, I know immediately it's wrong. Therefore, I suggest @paulag to check all her data throughly before she jumps to any conclusions.
@surpassggoogle, do you believe you votes more than one thousand times each day? Do you use bot? Tell @paulag she is wrong, please.
I know your data are not correct. Please check it.
Nobody can alter blockchain, but human can make mistakes.
I stand with you! Good analysis should base on correct data.
Looking more carefully at the data this time:
I took a look at the table vs the line chart in that image, and they can't be referencing the same data or the same time span. For example, in the chart @surpassinggoogle has a peak close to 700, yet in the table the average for @surpassinggoogle is 1327. I don't think that is mathematically possible. Based on the line chart, the average for @surpassinggoogle would have to be less than 700...
I think it speaks as "average"-- correct me if i'm wrong
Yes, I totally understand it's average. That's what I am talking about: on average he needs 22 hours to vote if he votes once per minutes, if @paulag's data are correct.
My conclusion is: her data are not correct. I only checked the data in the first chart and it's not correct. It makes me suspect the whole report.
Before I can discuss other issues with her, she need to make sure she shows correct data.
@paulag, do you know how happy I am? Well, my joy knew no bound with this data analysis, thanks for @maryfavour who resteemed this to my visibility, first thing is that this post shows us that nothing is hidden where there is data...... Thanks to @arcange.
Well, I'm not surprised to see the result, indeed, everyone knows who has done more good in the community, whenever I look at mentorship of @surpassinggoogle to me on doing good, I always smile, because I value lives and he does too...... for more clarification he wrote on something that gives joy the most recently in this post humanity is the next brother to you
I'm happy he is a doer of what he does preach all the time.....
Humm.... So also, I appreciate the brilliance of @ned, @ned you are indeed someone worthy of running a blockchain network...... Special Kudos to you....
@ned please leave the delegated steem power with surpassinggoogle, he is the only one that can help all Steemian at large..... and also you can add more to it.
Humanity is the brother next to you. How well are you treating them?
The man called @surpassinggoogle is an enigma.
Great data ,as always @paulag Honestly, I would love to see @ned delegate to the largest Steemit help community there is, Minnow support project. MSP has 5000 members and does alot to help minnows on Steemit, and a delegation from someone that has that kind of SP could help tremendously, and MSP has its own anti abuse team.
Of course I am bias, as I am one of the community leaders. But I am also being honest... MSP needs help from large delegators like @ned and that SP could goto helping ALOT of minnows that desperately need it
Agreed. It really is shameful to see this kind of behavior from so-called top contributors. I get it; selling votes isn't technically against the rules. Still, it's absolutely ugly. If we get on Jerry for selling courses composed of free information, how do you think this kind of practice is seen?
At least he undelegated it.
that is a good idea - hay @ned if you are reading this, minnow support is an awesome project
Yes @ned could help MSP so that a lot of minnows can be helped to also grow. This platform should should be one with a human face and not the grab-grab type . Thank you @followbtcnews for this.
I enjoy most of the unbiased presentation on the data you've accumulated and analyzed, except for the assertions such as "The data clearly show that @XXXX are selling votes" :)
The report could be more neutral if such strong language wasn't used and just presented the data.
'The report could be more neutral if such strong language wasn't used and just presented the data'
It is hard to please everyone. I have been criticized in the past for not voicing my opinion on the data
Thank you @paulag for voicing your opinion... We should call a spade a spade for the health of the community... Clearly what we see is what we get.
So... I can send you some SBD with a link to my post in the memo, and someone else can see that on the blockchain and make a post stating that you are selling votes when in fact you are not?
Thats why I voted @steemgigs as witness.. its @surpassinggoogle's project... give a vote for a great cause and a selfless person..
@paulag what I can said is this is a very good example of selective presentation of data to frame people. Nice work!
First of all, I have to declare my interests, I am one of the guy who @htliao, @nicolemoker and @linuslee0216 often voted, this was because we are from Hong Kong and we joined Steemit at almost the same time due to introduction of same person.
I would like to say you've dig out a lot of data which is the value of this post. However, it is clear to me that your conclusion had been deliberately set to make other people think to the direction you would like to, which is a very commonly used technique in business world to "achieve your goal by just selectively present data favour your conclusion". Again, this was nicely done and I believe many people who didn't care about the turth would very much like to see your conclusion.
Let's see that "Fact" that you use to conclude @htliao was selling votes, it was messages from @aafrin sent to @htliao asking for upvotes, sounds good proof! But let's see what @aafrin did:
Our fellow steemian like to send lots of messages to others who got plenty of SP for upvote. So I guess it is very natural for @aafrin to do the same thing to @htliao.
Guess what? I think he didn't get anything he needed in return that's why for later 18 days, no one went to @htliao for upvote business! What a failure @htliao was in the selling votes business!!!!! Maybe @ned undelegated his SP because @htliao could not sell votes well?
Let me show you all something else, there was another Steemian did the same thing by sending 1SBD to @htliao and ask for vote, and @htliao didn't do anything!!!!
What a bad businessman @htliao was if he was selling vote! I think you did the right thing by point out @htliao was not doing good in selling vote! No wonder @ned took the SP back!
I think @ned likes people who know how to use bot to vote and for those who really care about contents by looking into the posts before they votes, which made them cannot votes over thousands time per day, @ned thought them are not effective and took the SP back! That's the concluson I draw from your data. Thanks for the data!