all valid points :)
the psychology behind "voting for big stakes accounts to be noticed" is particularly interesting, because it doesn't really bring much in the long run, just a waste of voting power :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why wouldn't it? Some large stake holders look to see who's voting and supporting their content. At the same time, you earn curation rewards from voting on their post. So I don't see where it's a waste of voting power and bring much in the long run...
yes, it is very valid, until a point when you can't look through all the people who have voted for you. and in the long run, it doesn't bring much.
on the other hand, engaging in a conversation or creating something, or even looking for undervalued new posts can bring much more even in curation rewards :)
I disagree. I've been here long enough to see how the system works only 25% of what a post makes get distributed to curators. So if an undervalued post makes less than a dollar you don't earn much curation.
While you don't earn much. I find it better to add value than to chase after whale votes. But ohh well; that is my preference. There are multiple tricks /technisues to apply to increase your posting and curation rewards, some of which you have stated.
I am not saying to chase whales, I was pointing out to become one by investing and others tend to chase.
I know this is not what you are implying. Nevetheless, good article!
the thing is steemit is changing, more and more users are joining in. it's hard to say if they are going to stay active or not. but good posts and the work you put in creating them are going to stay even if money dries out.