Now I'm not trying to just paint people in a dark light
I don't mind doing it.
This is related to @zaku's voting with @bdvoter which is mostly @freedom stake where he takes a massive 20-30% cut. @freedom is hands off and doesn't know/care how his stake is used.
They elusively vote Splinterlands content and has his community trained in posting Splinterlands content taking advantage of the late @steemmonsters vote, resulting in a much higher than normal ~14% APR on curation rewards, almost 50% higher than other curators. Add in the massive self voting, it was a very large unfair advantage getting both sides of the reward pool.
I've been downvoting a lot of this over the few weeks for this reason as well as other related bullshit going on.
But as usual, I'm the asshole here.
It's especially annoying seeing this:
While seeing the SPL community do their best to get the project more funding thinking of ways to add ad revenue and other things I've been reading lately in some posts of the stakeholders without knowing that another project here is taking half of their curation rewards weekly (1000-1500 HP) while SPL is struggling and even receiving funding by the DHF.
me telling aggroed about the issue more than a year ago
Same mate, it's quite ridiculous to keep it going this way, doesn't matter if it's contests or whatever, there's very little reason/excuse to vote posts that late. There are times we do vote them as well but those posts are usually overlooked and in our scope for curation so we don't lose out anything and in the odd cases reward random curators who've put in time and their stake to go out of their way to vote posts close to 0 to a couple bucks. This however is a pattern that people could've easily abused for years and they've let it go on. And now they're facing the same loss on 2 different accounts and putting their authors in the crosshairs of downvotes just so the leeches will lose a bit APR.
I did some math the other week, at their current APR they are leaving ~78K/yr on the table, and bdvoter is scooping it up.
But it's not black and white, the 24 hour window is difficult without being dedicated 8-16 hours/day watching the chain. This has a direct cost as well.
Not sure how their curation is set up exactly, all I know is they leave gifs with this account when they upvote the posts (I think): https://peakd.com/@steemmonsters/comments
but since many of them land late it leaves room for others to predict which posts are going to get upvoted. Who knows if those predictions are only a guessing game but metrics show that they're pretty good at it to the point of taking 50% of the curation rewards of one of our biggest projects in the ecosystem.
Solution is to simply have more curators actively curate content as it's coming out rather than try and play catch-up later. Voting on posts purposely late also doesn't make a lot of sense since they'd want good SPL posts to get hot/trending attention to bring new users to the game.
The votes seem to land as the comment is placed so I'm guessing the curators have posting authority to cast the votes. If other curation projects can easily get to most posts before the 24h window I don't see why they can't.
Same fate here too. So this is costing SPL even more returns I'm sure they could use for various things...
wouldn't the easy way of fixing this is to make no curve and just that voting on it within 7 days nets the same no matter what? Nothing to game in that case right? I could be totally wrong though I don't understand the whole curve very well.
This would open up other issues and make it more difficult to fight abuse. Also, steemmonsters can easily fix it on their own in 2 minutes.
Honestly I don't think you're that bad this time. :D
Even the few spl content creators who asked me privately why the downvotes were occurring understood quickly the reason and didn't seem that against it. I just wish spl had changed things around sooner to avoid this curation sniping and potential excessive rewarding of a few curators. I've bugged them many times personally about this.
All my votes (up and down) are for the better of Hive, not myself or emotions.
I think that big stakeholders need to join forces sometimes and don't let one big guy fight by themselves! What is happening there is crazy! you would be crazy to see how much hive disappeared from the blockchain just in this case...
Not sure what u mean exactly, help join forces how? I've pointed this out to people in charge of splinterlands many, many times. Even offered help with copying how we curate posts to avoid voting on things late but nothing has been done to avoid the leakage.
I am not pointing to you hehehehe sorry if it looked like! I am just saying that in this specific cited case I didn't see much done by other people...there was a trial to make it public in hive watchers server(not by me) and it looked like that no one cared...
I guess it's quite a special case since they insist on doing their voting late for unknown reasons. So there's not much we other stakeholders can do aside from asking them to vote within 24h so people don't leech rewards off of them. Now as what seems like a "last resort" to bring down the leechers APR is downvotes but that also hurts authors so it's not a great solution. Instead they could just start curating more often throughout the day by with more curators.
The best solution in that case is stopping that crazy delegation, it looks like the person died not sure, that would be my guess! There are tons of big zombie accounts around...we were talking one of these days about some of them... their activity is just random curation no other transaction happening...
Ah noticed now first you replied to my comment here and not my post
yes!! I saw the post ...I was going to comment it but then I saw the comments...bad habit to be anxious to see the comments!!
However I doubt that the dv are the solution, these dv in repeated "post" of the same author, without any explanation could cause a negative influence to the authors, since it could lower the morale thinking that they are doing something wrong, when in reality it is not their fault for what is happening, which could generate the demotivation of this to continue publishing giving a bad experience and not wanting to return to the hive platform anymore, I do not agree that the random negative vote is the solution because the biggest disadvantaged is the author because for many obtaining a significant reward and seeing a negative vote lowers our morale thinking that we are doing things wrong and that they do not even tell us what we are doing wrong, it's just my point of view.
There is no solution, we have a whale delegating blindly to an abuser with no one willing to do a damn thing about it. It's gone on for far too long and this isn't even the only issue with it. No one posts explanation on why they upvote and upvotes are far more of a problem here than downvotes, by a factor of 1000:1.
I understand, however, what I am looking for is for the authors to be the least harmed, so a suggestion is that if you are going to continue giving negative votes (the ideal would be that you do not give negative votes if there is no direct reason for the post, it is just a suggestion) is that the votes be more random so that the authors will be the least harmed, since I have read in the discord the discontent of these and the lack of motivation for receiving these, and it would be sad if some of these left the platform for being the cause of collateral damage.
Well, you are sort of a bad guy here :) Just like I am. Because we both use DV. I had to counter a few of your DV myself but I did understand your view point and I have personally requested users who produce good content not to be bothered by your DV and not to demonize you
Pardon my joke Marky. However, let me make one thing clear regarding SL curation: due to the nature of the contests and participation it is impossible to vote posts within 24 hr window. There are multiple curators manually vote the contest and they are all unrelated to bdvoter. Hope this helps. If you have any solution in mind I am all ears.
Anyway, I never liked the 24 h window at all!
Manual curators are in general slower than autovoters, because they need to search, find, read and evaluate posts.
Yeah I don't either but that's what we currently have
View or trade
BEER.Hey @jaki01, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!If you like BEER and want to support us please consider voting @louis.witness on HIVE and on HIVE Engine.
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
There is more to it than SL vote farming, like his 100% self voting across multiple accounts like zaku and bdvoter.cur and some other sketchy stuff.
That is beyond me. I can only somewhat influence SL curation stuff. So I made that position clear. There is no conspiracy or internal understanding between SL curation and bdvoter.
I think maybe I don't understand, but I'd like to know more?
So the downvote hurts the author or the curator - or is it both? Is this happening for "co-consipirator authors", or just random authors that are posting honestly?
From markymark's description, it sounds to me like regular authors are just being downvoted because of the behaviour of a "parasite" - I don't really understand the 24 hour window or how it works, but from the above it does seem like the downvotes are probably hurting the author 90% and the guilty party 10%?
(Downvotes create some interesting discussions, I'd love to learn more about them but probably a discussion for another day)
Anyways, thanks again for enlightening me on the subject :)