You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Introducing Steeve Vote Beneficiaries
That is an interesting idea. Though, I am sort of lost in the numbers. One, even though you disable curation rewards, you will not increase the author's rewards. (Or did it change?) That means you are able to get 75% of total pending rewards. Two, you claim that you take 10% of the original vote weight and use it for yourself. I'll use examples to better explain myself.
User wants to vote 100%
A) Does the user vote 100% for the post and you use another 10% for the comment?
B) Does the user vote 90% for the post and you use the rest 10% for the comment?
A), it's 100% vote plus 10% tip for Steeve
Regarding the first part, I explained it in another comment.
Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
I saw that, but we saw in the past that disabling curation rewards did not increase the author's rewards. Thus I asked whether that part changed. I guess I will need to check that. But if you are sure about that, then it is good.
Well, I looked and this is what I found out. But I guess I should double-check.
Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
The code part that we discussed in the past (and did not spend more time on it anymore) considered this code.
To my understanding, if curation rewards are disabled, that part is nulled and is not added to the author's rewards. In other words, they stay in the pool.
Perhaps @crokkon may help with that. I didn't want to interfere with the plans, just sharing our previous experience with the same attempt.
Now I am really confused. As I understand the code you referenced
share_type author_tokens = reward_tokens.to_uint64() - curation_tokens;it says when curation_tokens are 0, author takes it all.
But according to @tcpolymath it's not like that.
I ran a new set of tests (the ones I did before making this post are less conclusive than I originally thought), but their results will be ready after the payout in 1 week..
Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
The line you refer to precedes the
pay_curatorsfunction.https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1789 this code splits the rewards into authors and curations.
But then https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1791 is there to split curations rewards amongst the curators. At this point, you have ca 75% (won't claim exact numbers) in authors rewards. However, pay_curators returns 0 (= curation_remainder) and max rewards (= curation_tokens) will be 0 too.
https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1794
https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L1797
In both cases, zero is added and authors rewards stay at 75%. Then the beneficiaries are calculated, which may decrease authors rewards even more.
Where did you get the 75%?
On line 1788 you have full rewards in reward_tokens, right?
Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
As I said I am not claiming that the numbers are right. However, the rewards are split in 3:1 ratio, therefore authors rewards make 75% of total rewards in the end.
Yes, it appears so that in rewards_tokens the full rewards are included.
Edit: https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/master/libraries/chain/database.cpp#L4897 Curation rewards ratio.