Those with largest capacity as upvoters are also the largest downvoters, by default. So the rewards that the largest downvotes return to the pool are highly likely to be redirected toward the largest upvoters - who are also the downvoters in enough cases for this to be relevant.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, those with more stake stand a chance to earn more with their upvotes. Percentage stays the same across the board. Upvotes also affect the balancing act, pulling rewards away from posts with pending potential rewards yet to be paid out.
Like one big spider web. Pressing the vote button, up or down, is like a bug landing on the web. That action sends ripples throughout the entire web, shaking a little bit of dust off here; dust that has to settle anyway and eventually lands, there.
See what I'm sayin?
All the votes affect the outcome for everyone - yes. However, since downvotes are 'free', in the sense that they don't have any cost to the downvoter, they can either be used as intended - to prevent spam/plagiarism/bots - or they can be used to downvote purely to maximise personal gain. This is a huge flaw in the system and yet it has always been hand waived away as being too insignificant to be relevant by whales (who are big downvoters). Marky claimed recently (just before HiveAlive went live) that no-one makes more than 0.1% gains from downvoting - yet HiveAlive has shown that the actual amount is closer to 4%-5%. If you are a whale that is trying to maximise your returns, an extra 5% is surely attractive! This also applies to non whales, but their impact is very small compared to the whale downvotes, in the sense that whale downvotes offer a massively centralised reduction in rewards for whoever is on the receiving end. If you have a quota of downvoting to get through, it's much more efficient to just nuke a few accounts that you invent reasons to justify your actions (to yourself) for.
In simple terms - downvote quotas being set by some here may be the issue.
Maybe just show me the gains. Pick a name from those downvoting and show me the 4-5% gain.
The 4-5% boosts the entire reward pool, which is then paid out on a stake weighted basis. It isn't possible to show exactly how much each whale benefits since we don't know which accounts might be their sockpuppets, churning out content behind the scenes. However, since it is very clear that stakeholders MUST vote in order to protect their investments, however they do that is being boosted by 4-5%.
The 4-5% isn't deducted from the reward pool. That's 4-5% being spread around the 100% indiscriminately and equally based on percentage. It's spread around, like I said, and reaches an equilibrium.
If that's the case, why act so confident? If you want to convince me this is a problem, I'll need proof. Surely you'd have evidence before making a claim so show me at least ONE account benefitting from what you see is a problem.
I didn't say it was or say anything that sounds like I said it was, so I'm a bit confused as to where you are coming from here.
That's exactly what I said in the comment you are replying to here, but in different words.
I suggest rethinking the maths involved, I've already made clear that ALL accounts benefit from the downvoting - that is by design - but the 'benefit' of downvoting is stake weighted, meaning that the biggest accounts have the most to gain in terms of pure 'revenue' increases.
Biggest accounts stand to gain the same percentage as the small accounts. And yes. It's common sense, if one owns more stake, they stand a chance to earn more, and lose more.
So what's the problem?