Can you determine that this change doesnt just increase the take by the trending page?
Minnows hardly get a majority of rewards, if i am guessing correctly.
It seems to me if the lion's share of rewards are sent to bidbots and trending, that that will also increase.
I would like to see these rewards burned, thereby benefiting all stakeholders equally by decreasing supply and inflationary losses.
Further i would like to see flagged rewards being burned.
Flagging trending is futile if the rewards are just transfered to the next post down the list.
While we are at it, declined rewards could be burned, too.
Again benefiting all stakeholders.
I dont have the skillz to do this myself, and would greatly appreciate it if you would look at the numbers so i can put the issue to rest, or start beating the drum harder.
Thanks.
One thing that there is absolutely no doubt on is that HF20 will dramatically decrease the return possible through using bidbots. It won't do anything about how attractive delegating SP to bidbots is unless that actually equates reduced demand/use, but it will eliminate one of the major ways that you could actually turn a profit by using bidbots. Under status quo users self upvoting at 0 minutes on a post that they buy a large vote for get a portion of the curation reward that would have gone to the bid bot.
I will have to look into effect of actually burning that reward vs. just ignoring the effect of those rshares on the reward pool as HF20 does. If I get some time I will try to dig up some answers.
Ok, thank you.
I just see flagging trending as futile if the rewards just go to the next post down, where burning them takes them off the table.
Its double edged, in that flagging spam wouldnt return the rewards to proper authors, but i think the deflationary aspects mitigate against that.