And remember to vote for the Witnesses who upgrade to the changes YOU want to see! Steem’s evolution depends on your votes!
On a recent @votu podcast episode which featured the witnesses and their views on the hardfork, we wondered... How exactly are we supposed to support the witnesses who will be voting the way we would like them to, without harassing them to find out how they will be voting (for or against the changes), and furthermore, how are these witnesses who want to represent the community, supposed to know what their supporters want them to do.
If you really want to get to know the witnesses let us introduce you to @fyrstdragon, @dogefunk, and others. @dan there's a special request in here for you, (you missed your chance @ned)
Also I approve of all changes though I would prefer to see comment curation rewards go to the commenters, and think this would be simpler despite it being different from posts. It's already quite clear they work differently since the same curation incentives naturally aren't there.
Lets talk about it over donuts!
Answer to this comment
It does actually, everyone has reported having more influence in the last 12 hours, even minnows with very little SP.
There are more dolphins than whales so the power is spread out among a lot more users. It's not about being a better voters it's about giving steem power utility, currently 99% of users don't understand the purpose of steem power because it doesn't give them any influence and so they are not buying more of it and many are cashing out early because of this.
It is giving the majority more say as we speak and would be even more obvious if the curve was removed.
I'm a minnow and I can tell you, I did not have more power, though I considered powering up as I know as a dolphin I would have had. True the power is more spread out and that made it an interesting experiment. However, the rules weren't set, no post to say what threshold was considered "a collusive whale vote", guild votes or sock puppet voters were not taken into account, and when it came to negating the vote of one whale with 5 collusive whale accounts on the post the rules were bent and @abit went ahead and asked if it was ok to downvote.
The same rules did not apply to everyone. The experiment was a failure because the perameters were not disclosed or even standards set. The negated votes were completely random and some automated. I will still be interested in seeing what @abit learned from it, but it was never an experiment to be taken seriously when the post that explained it was something like 2 sentences long. Clearly, there wasn't enough thought put into it.
I've voted one of your post which has one vote and it raised the rewards from $0.012 to $0.013. It's next to nothing but it doesn't count. I, as a user, have noticed the rewards change after my vote, and it feels good.
One cannot notice this on Steemit, though. I'm using Busy (most of the times) which uses $x.xxx form instead of cents. It makes sense to me, because SBD has 3 decimal places. Maybe it would be better to use this form on Steemit, too.
You do have more power, everyone does. Try to upvote a post with a good payout and you will notice the difference.
LOL. I don't vote on posts with a good payout. That defeats the purpose of my vote. If their payout is good they dont need my vote, so no my say is not greater as a minnow. And by minnow I mean less than 10 M Vests.
That is because the n² curve. Everyone has more influence, but only last voters notice the difference.
It is greater than what it used to be before the experiment, Im not sure what you are arguing about.
If it still does not satisfy you, then eliminating n^2 probably will or just buy more steem power.
You seem upset that you have no say but what is your proposal to improve the situation? Incentivizing whales to not vote is the only solution afaik