RE: xproject - Bringing balance to the trail game
(Edited)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Why would blind flags be normalizing? It's targeted and punitive. Some of what those accounts upvote or downvote are likely great choices, some are likely not. Blindly following a trial is simply not curation it's a stake war and harmful.
When people stop treating downvotes as their almighty power against those smaller and name calling and being ridiculous when giving them. Those who receive them will become less defensive.
Not blind, biggest curation accounts.
Lol.
Read that again in the context of 'biggest curation accounts'.
What is offered here is a way for nontechies to counter the people taking the most out of the pool.
It is a classic crab bucket move.
Nothing wrong with that, imo.
I hope it persists.
Somehow I doubt the initiative gets much support, though, despite the noble sentiments.
lol, so noble. :)
@acidyo lk Would you at least partake in that as an experiment? Maybe you can also invite your other whale friends and not vote up anything for 1 month or 3? Or not upvote large enough to take away from the very little guys?
Votes can be adjusted, maybe rather look at how many unique accounts and votes "biggest curation accounts" cast instead of just looking at their size. I know curangel votes on 10x more unique authors than another account of a similar size for instance, doesn't mean people should just blindly auto-downvote them both cause that doesn't change anything. Careful downvote curation could push certain curation accounts to try harder/do better, if they care about the APR that is.
The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.
Selling what is going on in the curation gangs as 'helping the little guy' is delusional, imo.
You do understand how the math works, yes?
When whales vote redfish get pushed below the dust cutoff of the long tail.
Negating those rshares serves far more people than allowing them to payout can claim.
Two accounts vs all but two.
Until the coins spread out by a factor of 100, 5000 accounts needed to control rather than 50, we are subject to more than just money attacks.
This also discourages investment.
The age of oligarchies is coming to an end.
Sounds like you're the one that's delusional.
You were here for the whale experiment, weren't you.
Yes? How is that similar to the voting some of those accounts listed above do these days?
The way that the long tail gets steeper.
It may not curve as much, but the curve remains.
If the goal is to maximize the help to the little guys, centralizing the distribution so that the top 20 accounts pull out 53% of the inflation available for rewards is gonna fail at that.
source
It doesn't matter who/how those accounts vote, half the value of their vote goes to themselves and the other half to one account.
Their not voting benefits every account that they wouldn't have voted.
If instead of these few accounts pulling out their share of the curation they let it spread out, more accounts are benefited.
And, to state the obvious, if they are getting this share of the curation rewards, they are giving that share of author rewards, too.
I believe this to be one the of the main reasons we haven't seen broader investment.
@acidyo is a wealthy elite member of the group who run this platform. He and his associates have installed and use the down-vote button to abuse, control, and manipulate for their own personal reasons. It's a total disgrace and everyone should know there is an alternative platform free of this blatant corruption.