Witness Ranking by Popular Vote
I thought it would be interesting to look at how the witnesses would be ranked if each witness vote was counted equally, instead of based on the SP weight.
A Few Notes:
- This is not intended to suggest that we actually rank witnesses this way. (Obviously a popular voting system is prone to Sybil attack, and is not a good idea for many other reasons.)
- Witnesses that are not running the latest hardfork (v0.16.0 or above) have been excluded.
- Witnesses that are not in the top 100 list (based on SP voting) have been excluded.
- The popular vote does not take into account proxy voting.
- The data was collected from steemd.com and steemdb.com. (Thanks to @roadscape and @jesta for creating these awesome tools for the community to use!)
- The data was collected and assembled by hand. I did my best to ensure everything is accurate, but I cannot guarantee that it is 100% error free.
Here is how witnesses are currently ranked using the current voting algorithm of SP weight:
| Rank | Witness | SP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | @abit | 100,519 MV |
| 2 | @jesta | 98,316 MV |
| 3 | @charlieshrem | 96,674 MV |
| 4 | @blocktrades | 96,299 MV |
| 5 | @roelandp | 95,875 MV |
| 6 | @roadscape | 95,704 MV |
| 7 | @gtg | 94,638 MV |
| 8 | @anyx | 92,388 MV |
| 9 | @arhag | 92,038 MV |
| 10 | @riverhead | 91,577 MV |
| 11 | @witness.svk | 91,559 MV |
| 12 | @smooth.witness | 91,260 MV |
| 13 | @pfunk | 91,097 MV |
| 14 | @xeldal | 90,422 MV |
| 15 | @clayop | 88,857 MV |
| 16 | @liondani | 86,006 MV |
| 17 | @bhuz | 85,026 MV |
| 18 | @chainsquad.com | 84,667 MV |
| 19 | @pharesim | 83,226 MV |
| 20 | @good-karma | 79,266 MV |
| 21 | @complexring | 79,036 MV |
| 22 | @datasecuritynode | 77,290 MV |
| 23 | @wackou | 77,061 MV |
| 24 | @joseph | 76,583 MV |
| 25 | @klye | 74,556 MV |
| 26 | @steempty | 71,872 MV |
| 27 | @aizensou | 67,532 MV |
| 28 | @steemychicken1 | 64,948 MV |
| 29 | @delegate.lafona | 64,784 MV |
| 30 | @someguy123 | 59,822 MV |
| 31 | @ihashfury | 57,708 MV |
| 32 | @busy.witness | 57,213 MV |
| 33 | @thecryptodrive | 55,517 MV |
| 34 | @bacchist | 54,773 MV |
| 35 | @bitcoiner | 54,206 MV |
| 36 | @steemed | 53,593 MV |
| 37 | @au1nethyb1 | 50,299 MV |
| 38 | @furion | 47,960 MV |
| 39 | @dragosroua | 45,682 MV |
| 40 | @picokernel | 43,967 MV |
| 41 | @chitty | 43,431 MV |
| 42 | @boatymcboatface | 40,619 MV |
| 43 | @cyrano.witness | 38,718 MV |
| 44 | @fyrst-witness | 36,422 MV |
| 45 | @kushed | 35,527 MV |
| 46 | @nextgencrypto | 34,090 MV |
| 47 | @masteryoda | 32,340 MV |
| 49 | @steem-id | 25,492 MV |
| 50 | @bue | 25,068 MV |
| 51 | @timcliff | 21,050 MV |
| 54 | @pumpkin | 18,071 MV |
| 55 | @theprophet0 | 17,509 MV |
| 56 | @cervantes | 17,137 MV |
| 57 | @curie | 11,399 MV |
| 58 | @nonlinearone | 10,712 MV |
| 60 | @tdv.witness | 9,965 MV |
| 61 | @instructor2121 | 8,032 MV |
| 62 | @hagie | 7,504 MV |
| 63 | @proctologic | 6,551 MV |
| 67 | @nexus-dev | 5,486 MV |
| 68 | @teamsteem | 5,229 MV |
| 69 | @blackwidow | 4,478 MV |
| 70 | @royaltiffany | 3,356 MV |
| 71 | @arcange | 2,785 MV |
| 72 | @enki | 2,296 MV |
| 73 | @glitterpig | 2,101 MV |
| 75 | @stephanie | 1,126 MV |
| 76 | @team.alpha | 1,106 MV |
| 79 | @fubar-bdhr | 845 MV |
| 80 | @rainman | 806 MV |
| 81 | @bola | 717 MV |
| 82 | @bitcoinparadise | 707 MV |
| 83 | @cryptos | 703 MV |
| 85 | @laonie | 577 MV |
| 86 | @blockchained | 504 MV |
| 88 | @mrs.agsexplorer | 442 MV |
Here is how witnesses would be ranked if they were ranked based on popular vote (equal weight per vote):
I hope you found it interesting!
Remember to vote for witnesses!
https://steemit.com/~witnesses
If you aren't sure who to vote for, check out this Witness Voting Guide :-)
These numbers are the result of three to five million fraudulent votes. Maybe more. And every single one of those votes went to other witnesses. I didn't receive a single fraudulent vote. But there were a lot of fraudulent votes.
Well played, sir :)
It was genius.
I'm not sure what you mean. Even if you add up all the votes across all the witnesses, they are only thousands (not millions). Also, what are you defining as a fraudulent vote?
It was a jole. Just having some fun. :)
Oh, lol. I was way too much in "number crunching mode". I thought you were saying there was something wrong with the data :P
LOL!!!
Trumped Again!!!!
Thanks for sharing this information with us all. All for one and one for all! Namaste :)
Thats interesting that we are with @cervantes at (almost) the same position in both cases.
Hehe, cool :)
Interesting way to see the information differently :)
Thanks for the effort!
Welcome :)
Heh, I shouldn't be on this list technically... Something was up with my compile but is back up and my seed will be up shortly.
Thank you :)
Well you have the votes, so you made the cut ;)
Cool :) I think that the current algorithm is ok (as you also mentioned), but it's interesting to see other angles as well.
Cool stats man!
Thanks for putting this together. Neat to see this data.
Excellent information sir @timcliff, thank you very much
I followed all of what you were saying and what this was about!
I actually did find this very interesting, you must hve gotten a kick out of that.
@klye and @theprophet0 make huge gains if the chart was done this way!
Really digging into thos numbers!!
Yeah, it was a lot of fun to see how the rankings changed :)
This post has been ranked within the top 10 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 28. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $26.95 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 28 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.