Is that part of the old Curation-reward Formula?
I'm only here since a month or so ..
What will be the difference?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Is that part of the old Curation-reward Formula?
I'm only here since a month or so ..
What will be the difference?
Basically it means that if a post receives 2x as strong votes as another post, it will generate 4x the rewards.
Meaning that if a lot of stakeholders agreed on a post, it would get a major share from the rewardpool. This would change the curation game and make looking for good content on Steemit actually worthwhile.
I don't understand. The number of votes doesn't count in Steem. Do you want the change the rules so that the number of votes will count?
There's a theory that the whales were better at curation than a mass audience, but you can't just pretend that everyone had a say in the n^2 system.
I did not mean number of votes, but their strength.
I want the rewards-formula changed back.
That does not mean I want only whales to curate.
Can you imagine if the top ten posts on the trending page were getting rewarded even more based on Vote Weight?
I get the point you are making about self-voting, but I don't think I could go back to getting pennies and watching that shit show of a trending page being even more highly rewarded while everyone else gets less.
I got this reply a lot so I made a post about it:
https://steemit.com/non-linear/@felixxx/why-n-2
This sure as hell does sound like the way it should be ... why did we change that again..
t.
N^2 was the original formula for all votes. It meant that votes of whales counted exponentially more than votes of minnows. Simplified example: 1 Steem Power = 1 vote, 100 SP = 10,000 votes, 1,000 SP = 1,000,000 votes etc. Today, your voting power is equal to the amount of Steem Power you have.
I don't agree that going back and making most users powerless is a good solution.
That's not what I am proposing.