OK, thanks a lot, so my feeling that for 7 days we will have a "mixed" payout algo is correct. That is, the curation-weights will remain the same but the author-curate-rewards will go to the pool.
This does mean that those who currently upvote very early on a post should change the timing - unless that remains their strategy, but not if they are doing it to give the author an extra reward. In such cases they need to increase their timing... now.
Yes, sure, nobody should be decreasing their autovotes timing now, but those who vote very early should seriously think about increasing their timing now - like @indigoocean mentioned that Busy upvotes immediately on posting.
Actually, not so confusing, but few people seem to have discussed this.
In general, all data that has been written (such as weights and author-curation rewards) stays the same, but the payouts will be processed under the new rules.
One other thing I suspect people will forget is that this also applies to comment upvotes. Most don't expect great curation rewards from comments, accepting that a large part will go to the author if, as now, the exchanges are close together in time.
Perhaps not many look so closely at the numbers as I do!
@crokkon - What is the meaning of this phrase? "reverse auction timeframe"
I have 20 people I upvote through steemdunk. I have them all set at 27 minutes. Think I should change them to 16 minutes now, correct?
I self vote and just set myself up for 16 minutes. I previously was manually voting right after I created the post. So I think I am better off to put myself on the autovoter now that I read your answers here.
Thank you so much for the answer. With my tiny votes, I'm not sure how much this matters, but I want the author or me to get the curation reward. Why vote and have it go back into the pool? That makes no sense. More mysteries of steemit!
OK, thanks a lot, so my feeling that for 7 days we will have a "mixed" payout algo is correct. That is, the curation-weights will remain the same but the author-curate-rewards will go to the pool.
This does mean that those who currently upvote very early on a post should change the timing - unless that remains their strategy, but not if they are doing it to give the author an extra reward. In such cases they need to increase their timing... now.
.
Yes, sure, nobody should be decreasing their autovotes timing now, but those who vote very early should seriously think about increasing their timing now - like @indigoocean mentioned that Busy upvotes immediately on posting.
Actually, not so confusing, but few people seem to have discussed this.
In general, all data that has been written (such as weights and author-curation rewards) stays the same, but the payouts will be processed under the new rules.
That seems to be as brief as I can muster!
.
One other thing I suspect people will forget is that this also applies to comment upvotes. Most don't expect great curation rewards from comments, accepting that a large part will go to the author if, as now, the exchanges are close together in time.
Perhaps not many look so closely at the numbers as I do!
@crokkon - What is the meaning of this phrase? "reverse auction timeframe"
I have 20 people I upvote through steemdunk. I have them all set at 27 minutes. Think I should change them to 16 minutes now, correct?
I self vote and just set myself up for 16 minutes. I previously was manually voting right after I created the post. So I think I am better off to put myself on the autovoter now that I read your answers here.
.
Thank you so much for the answer. With my tiny votes, I'm not sure how much this matters, but I want the author or me to get the curation reward. Why vote and have it go back into the pool? That makes no sense. More mysteries of steemit!