For example, do we agree that voting on comments is good? If that is the case, then the number of different people who can be voted on is rather limited since the majority of people do not place appropriate comments. Is this considered circle jerking?
NO, not at all.
And upvoting comments sure is very good.
Unfortunately, we do see a totally different "curations" from some of these TOP20 leaders, which has nothing at all common with comment voting, or alike.
Like this:
A ~50K Leo stake holder (which consist of 99% stake delegated, and 1% his own), during whole week spends ~7 minutes for his curation job, upvotes a selected 24 (twenty four) authors, every day the same and the same, all with 100% voting power.
76 votes during 7 days, but NOT even one single vote on a comment, not a single vote with less than 100% power.
I would be not surprised, if data retracted for a longer period (not seven days, but for month or two), would still show his voting power 99+% spent on the same selected 24-25 authors. I have noticed this behavior before, and maybe it is time to pinpoint it to others.
Before this type of "curation" gets more followers.
It would be also quite interesting to dig a bit deeper, and see from where exactly his 99% delegated Leo power is coming.
As you all know, everything is on the blockchain, forever, all what is needed is just have some time and start digging.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That's just sad. For leofinance to succeed, people need to know that it's OK to upvote comments here. There's no convergent linear penalty like there is on Steem or HIve. It's OK if a post or comment has zero prior upvotes, the curation is still the same regardless.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
i didnt know this. Good to see Leofinance adjusted the way vote payout is shared.
I'm planning on minting a coin on hive-engine and wondering how to set up issuing of coins to voters and posters
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
For some is pure business and circle jerking and nothing more. I guess the perfect community will never exist, but there's always room inside a community for alike people.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
From my perspective, however, this is quite easy to explain. There is a curator who has supposedly identified which people provide the best content. In the end, it's no longer about the blog post, but about who this blog post comes from. This leads to the same names appearing frequently in the featured lists. Some names I read there every day, sometimes multiple times. The votes on these posts are to a large extent not organic. I.e. the above happened. A person has been identified who is being curated. Because of this consistent curation, it is probably lucrative for people who take profit optimization as a criterion for their activity to curate these people as well. Because you can statistically count on the fact that the contribution constantly receives corresponding votes and the own curator reward is therefore constantly good. Then there is the fact that only a limited number of upvotes can be awarded - at some point the daily capacity is reached. This means that once you have identified such a group and then stay with it, there is not much room for new things. Please correct me if I have a mistake in thinking here.
It was pointed out to me a few months ago that my Curatin APY could be optimized and that I should be careful to upvote "more prominent" authors on Hive and not small comments that don't generate appropriate curation rewads. Absolutely understandable from a profit optimization perspective, probably counterproductive in terms of promoting good content.
But well, since I keep upvoting comments and posts regardless of what a potential curation reward will be, I guess I'll have to live with my 1.9% curation APR.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta