It is pretty similar to non-linear rewards though, and with a pretty low barrier to have an impact. Plus, a vote that is less than whatever the threshold would not be wasted - if the post/comment reaches the threshold, then whatever payout the low-payout vote added would be included in the total.
Let's say we set the threshold to 0.10 SBD. If each user votes and adds 0.01 to the comment, and the comment gets 10 of these votes - then there will be a payout of 0.10.
With new user votes at 0.001, it takes 10 users to earn 1 cent and 100 users voting to earn 10 cents. With new users lucky to get 10 votes, how are they to meet these requirements?
That is by design. New users who have not earned any of their own stake yet do not really have a vested interest in the platform. The expectation should not be for 10 or 100 new users to be able to join up and be able to start having a significant influence over rewards right away. If they participate and add value though - then over time the value of their vote should increase.
You totally baffled me with that comment. Someone earning 10 cents from 100 votes is a significant influence? Very few new users can even hope to get 10 voters to vote for them, let alone 100. If they manage to get 100 votes then they must be very exceptional. Even then, 10 cents is hardly a major influence in my books.
So, if they can't earn their first cent, HOW are they supposed to EVER get their own SP to increase the value of their own votes over time? Am I missing something or misunderstanding your proposal?
Nobody said they couldn't earn their first cent. That is the whole point. They should be looking to earn more SP so that they can actually have a vote that is worth something. The intention was never for brand new users who have not invested anything (not even time to earn some rewards) to have influence.
OK, then I must be misinterpreting something. Please help me and others like myself to understand what the proposal actually says.
The way I understand it is that new users who post something cannot actually earn anything unless the value of their post is greater than 10 cents, 25 cents or even $1 in order to prevent people from making SPAM posts. If that were to be implemented, then without the help of a benevolent dolphin or whale, the likelihood of these new users earning anything would be slim to none, because mostly other new users will be voting on their articles. I often don't make over $1 on my articles, so even I would be held back if this were to be implemented at the $1 threshold. So let's say the threshold is set at 10 cents. In that case, I'll be fine for my articles, but many times my comments will receive only a vote worth 1 to 7 cents. With a 10 cent threshold, would that mean that any comment receiving less than 10 cents would be considered SPAM and get zero pay-out?
This is not about influence; it is about cutting off the earnings of those who already earn very little and have practically no influence anyway.
Are we interpreting the proposal incorrectly? If so, a lot of people are unnecessarily concerned and would appreciate being set straight. Thanks!
The information in your recent reply is accurate. I think we started talking about two different things (the value of a new user’s vote, and the earnings a new user would make under the proposal), and the conversations got a little confused. It seems pretty clear from the feedback that the majority of the community sees more “cons” than “pros” from this change - so I don’t expect it will go anywhere.
This is a part of how Steemit killed me when I was young.
You got a 21.43% upvote from @proffit courtesy of @stimialiti!
You got a 14.29% upvote from @luckyvotes courtesy of @stimialiti!
You got a 16.67% upvote from @sleeplesswhale courtesy of @stimialiti!
It is pretty similar to non-linear rewards though, and with a pretty low barrier to have an impact. Plus, a vote that is less than whatever the threshold would not be wasted - if the post/comment reaches the threshold, then whatever payout the low-payout vote added would be included in the total.
Let's say we set the threshold to 0.10 SBD. If each user votes and adds 0.01 to the comment, and the comment gets 10 of these votes - then there will be a payout of 0.10.
With new user votes at 0.001, it takes 10 users to earn 1 cent and 100 users voting to earn 10 cents. With new users lucky to get 10 votes, how are they to meet these requirements?
That is by design. New users who have not earned any of their own stake yet do not really have a vested interest in the platform. The expectation should not be for 10 or 100 new users to be able to join up and be able to start having a significant influence over rewards right away. If they participate and add value though - then over time the value of their vote should increase.
You totally baffled me with that comment. Someone earning 10 cents from 100 votes is a significant influence? Very few new users can even hope to get 10 voters to vote for them, let alone 100. If they manage to get 100 votes then they must be very exceptional. Even then, 10 cents is hardly a major influence in my books.
So, if they can't earn their first cent, HOW are they supposed to EVER get their own SP to increase the value of their own votes over time? Am I missing something or misunderstanding your proposal?
Nobody said they couldn't earn their first cent. That is the whole point. They should be looking to earn more SP so that they can actually have a vote that is worth something. The intention was never for brand new users who have not invested anything (not even time to earn some rewards) to have influence.
OK, then I must be misinterpreting something. Please help me and others like myself to understand what the proposal actually says.
The way I understand it is that new users who post something cannot actually earn anything unless the value of their post is greater than 10 cents, 25 cents or even $1 in order to prevent people from making SPAM posts. If that were to be implemented, then without the help of a benevolent dolphin or whale, the likelihood of these new users earning anything would be slim to none, because mostly other new users will be voting on their articles. I often don't make over $1 on my articles, so even I would be held back if this were to be implemented at the $1 threshold. So let's say the threshold is set at 10 cents. In that case, I'll be fine for my articles, but many times my comments will receive only a vote worth 1 to 7 cents. With a 10 cent threshold, would that mean that any comment receiving less than 10 cents would be considered SPAM and get zero pay-out?
This is not about influence; it is about cutting off the earnings of those who already earn very little and have practically no influence anyway.
Are we interpreting the proposal incorrectly? If so, a lot of people are unnecessarily concerned and would appreciate being set straight. Thanks!
The information in your recent reply is accurate. I think we started talking about two different things (the value of a new user’s vote, and the earnings a new user would make under the proposal), and the conversations got a little confused. It seems pretty clear from the feedback that the majority of the community sees more “cons” than “pros” from this change - so I don’t expect it will go anywhere.