Ganging up to increase influence disadvantages everybody that doesnt join in.
As someone that will never get a curie vote, they can jump in a lake.
They steal from my vote 'because they can'.
Forgive me if i dont join in your celebration.
@curie takes from everybody's vote and gives to their select few.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You can go ahead and tell yourself that Curie is giving to a select few but of course if you are open to seeing what is completely transparent and apparent on the blockchain, you will have to admit that is an objectively false opinion to hold.
Here is the outgoing vote diversity from the Curie account - be curious what you have to say about this in respect to your opinion that Curie gives to "its select few"?
For reference, here is your own outgoing vote diversity. Hmmmm.......
Looks like my diversity is 5.5% less than curie's and im one person.
Dissent need not apply.
Controversy need not apply.
Free speech is out if you want a curie vote.@curie's select few are lined right out in their guidelines.
So, my question becomes, how much more diverse would the stake holders be if whales werent imprinting who gets rewards.
Anyone with alternate views are just overwhelmed by the advantage having whale support gives them in the math.
My rewards are decreased by the multiple that your whale's sp brings to the table. Its clear that only like minded folks are deserving of rewards in @curie's opinion.
By picking winners, losers come into existence.
By using whale sp to leverage your control of the math you create even more losers.
You might not like that fact of the math, but its true, and no amount of denial and jusification will change it.
Ganging up for the purpose of gaining advantage in the reward pool is abuse.
As I said you are welcome to hold your opinion. You can say that it is a "select" group, but to call it a select "few" is objectively false. In the past two weeks the Curie vote reached nearly 1700 users, the vast majority of those newer / lesser rewarded authors, and objectively not some small group receiving upvotes. The decision to stay away from political posting is IMO a sound decision to protect the supported authors from flag retaliation, but you are of course welcome to dissent. Not arguing those points. Just seems beyond strange to say that Curie is in any way shape or form only supporting a small group of authors. It just isn't the case.
1700÷65k=.02615
2.6% of authors is rewarded with what percentage of the reward pool?
Wanna bet its more than 2.5%?
Clearly, the vaster majority is being ignored.Now, knowing that @curie reaches 2.6% of authors, while reducing the rewards of every vote that would otherwise get paid, do you wish to recharacterize your statement?
Actually Curie currently controls less than 2% of the reward pool, so that would be a bad bet for you :) Compare that to the top 5 bid bots who control almost 20%. Here is another way to look at it, although obviously it isn't going to make a difference as you have already made up your mind to believe something that is not true. This is the percent of all authors in given REP bands who have received a Curie upvote in their time on Steem. Still want to say that Curie is supporting a "select few"? By the time you get into the REP ranges that mean an account has been posting for a little while and is not a spam account, Curie has supported a huge chunk of the accounts.
You are right, carl, i have made my mind up about ganging up to increase rewards, msp is just as bad, if not worse.
Im not sure that you see my perspective on the matter.
The way i see it, and have from the beginning, is that i am excluded from getting a curie vote by design, they dont want to support my content, but they dont mind making the votes i do get smaller by concentrating sp on their endeavor.
Same as the msp.
If they were voting as individuals that would be one thing, but to advocate a group identity in the pursuit of greater rewards disadvantages everybody that doesnt get their votes, including the dupes that join but dont get votes, either.
Your graph clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of authors dont benefit from curie's gang.
Yet, all rewards are diminished by their consolidating influence.
How many more authors would benefit if, instead of following the group, those voters found their own content to vote rather than that championed by curie?
What your graph shows me is that curie is not as successful at forcing their idea of good content on the rest of us as they would like.
Im proudly part of the 45% that got to rep 65 without being a milquetoast suck up.
Those with enough sp to control who does, and doesnt, get rewards here have been real clear about their goals on what content they want to be seen, thank god they are failing to silence all disenting opinions.
To further clarify my position, i am a fan of the whale experiment, i think the largest accounts should be viewed as speculators, and excluded from the pool until the pool grows large enough to accomodate them.
Doing this gives the little accounts a chance to grow without whales sucking all the rewards to themselves.
No, I see your point - I was just taking exception to the particular verbiage of select "few". I don't think by any definition of the word "few" it is accurate. BTW thanks for taking the time to respond intelligently, articulately, and without devolving into name calling/insulting. I personally am not in favor of silencing dissenting opinions, it is why I gave your initial comment my 100% upvote (not that my upvote is huge or anything) and raised its visibility in the comment thread. I would much rather have a conversation and try to understand opposing viewpoints, and I appreciate that you were willing to indulge me in that.
I am 100% in favor of what you are saying about whales being excluded from the pool. You may not be aware, but the initial goal of Curie was to have phased itself out of existence by now. The idea was to help diversify the reward pool, redistribute wealth (SP) to smaller accounts, and once Curie was not as relevant to shutter operations. The funny thing is that while Curie's influence on the reward pool has indeed been steadily shrinking, it is not because the wealth is better distributed now than it used to be. Quite the opposite. The rise of bid bots / vote selling is serving to further concentrate the wealth in the pockets of the largest accounts, dominating an ever increasing % of the vote pool, and in my own opinion, making Curie more indispensable than ever.
One thing I should mention - I know you have been on platform for a while, and typically when I run into people who share this view of Curie they have been on platform for a while. I bring this up because your point about the Curie vote being designed to exclude you (and by extension, other authors who share similar views) by intention used to have a much more solid basis in fact. Not sure if you are aware, but back in September of last year Curie diversified operations considerably by reserving a large chunk of its total vote power to support interest and regional specific "sub-communities", which do NOT operate by the core Curie guidelines. The reason there is such vote diversity as I highlighted in the first charts I shared, and the reason why Curie is now reaching a greater % of authors than its % influence on the reward pool, is precisely because of this. "Core" Curie operations, meaning the posts submitted by Curie curators for review by Curie reviewers, and which the Curie guidelines apply to, are actually now a very small % of the total outgoing vote. Each week the number of outgoing votes from this core operation is typically in the 100-150 vote range, while total outgoing votes is in the 1000-1200 range.
I am not going to pretend that there are no issues with the Curie supported sub-communities either, but the entire point of going this route was so Curie would reach a much more diverse set of authors that would never be reached by core Curie operations. We are in the middle of conducting an audit on all the supported Curie sub-communities and have uncovered some abuse of the vote follow, so again, not going to claim this is a perfect system. But given your core objections to Curie, hopefully you can see that this is a huge step in the direction you are wanting to see. These are much smaller votes, and are distributed much more broadly, and are not beholden to the Curie guidelines. The sub-community votes are cast by independent curation teams which are not Curie operators.
Anyway - thanks for humoring me and I appreciate the back and forth. You do good things for this platform and I appreciate it. Cheers - Carl