Well, the real problem lies within the issue of sybil attacks. Are you familiar with this? Basically, sybil attack means that bots/sockpuppet accounts could vote for a post say like 2,000 upvotes. In order to prevent gaming of the system, all upvotes are not equal. This means that because I've invested a ton of time and energy into this system (8 months to be exact and over 7000 posts), powering up most of it, my vote currently counts for $.05. I think what the problem is, is that there's too much distance between new people coming in and whales. Also, even with my investment, I'm not able to significantly affect the rewards of those I vote for. It takes too much time/money to get Steem Power. This is what I hope the algorithm fixes.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I have read your post - parts of it a couple of times. I can see the struggle you are facing with the 'whale' people. They will not let go. The top 20 or so, who really do control the whole thing (less if you want to be corporate minded), they do not want to surrender their control and are not really concerned about price of steem - it is a grab and hold - they will be grabbing more in other accounts so as not to appear opportunistic with the price as it is.
There is a demand from them to be allowed to keep what they have AND to be allowed to boss the 'pot' of money in the meantime. This is called having one's cake and eating it too.
Meanwhile there are others who are in the 20-60 range who are getting fed up because, despite their position, their rewards are looked at as Return on Investment and they are getting grumpy with diminishing returns. They can see their stake being better employed elsewhere because the blockchain throws up opportunities more and more frequently -IT people, like doctors and professors and so forth think that they can take an idea and make it worth millions. They cannot, they are IT people and doctors etc. They are also looking at the ROI in terms of today's value or even July's value, rather than what they actually paid for their stake, as one should.
As to your post, it is a nice pleasantry, I am afraid. If you cannot show absolute numbers, which this does not, it is what we used to call flak. When a missile is approaching a ship you throw up all sorts of stuff to distract the missile and take it off-course.
I am sorry if that sounds a bit insulting. It is not meant to in any way. It is just that the explanation doe not really explain.
"Your December would have given you 'x', rather than the 'y', you actually received" - That is an absolute demonstration which is what the non-algorithm centric mind needs.
To what % is the rewards structure changed? If it goes from 98/2 to 96/4, people will say that one's rewards have been doubled. The actual distribution, when it is done, does not work that way though and this is one of the veils which the average person does not see. Hence my suggestion of a weekly distribution summary. It can appear anywhere. It will, though, show up the true distribution which is a case of whales profiting at tremendous leverage off the average blogger.