The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.
Sounds like you're the one that's delusional.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.
Sounds like you're the one that's delusional.
You were here for the whale experiment, weren't you.
Yes? How is that similar to the voting some of those accounts listed above do these days?
The way that the long tail gets steeper.
It may not curve as much, but the curve remains.
If the goal is to maximize the help to the little guys, centralizing the distribution so that the top 20 accounts pull out 53% of the inflation available for rewards is gonna fail at that.
source
It doesn't matter who/how those accounts vote, half the value of their vote goes to themselves and the other half to one account.
Their not voting benefits every account that they wouldn't have voted.
If instead of these few accounts pulling out their share of the curation they let it spread out, more accounts are benefited.
And, to state the obvious, if they are getting this share of the curation rewards, they are giving that share of author rewards, too.
I believe this to be one the of the main reasons we haven't seen broader investment.