You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Burning the Evidence

in Proof of Brain4 years ago

You have a week to vote on posts. I would find it difficult to believe you don't think anything this week wasn't worth voting on. If there is such a dry spell, the curator should post. If all the rest are really poor, he could end up with 250 POB in author rewards.

Sort:  

To avoid losing out on curation rewards one still has to vote on at least 70 posts (assuming all votes are 100%) per week not to run up against 100% though?

Speaking for myself, I know that I can have some weeks where I really enjoy looking for underrated authors, reading their posts, and handing them a well deserved upvote. But then there can also be weeks where I just want to spend less time looking at a screen and instead relax more.

But my point above wasn't really about my own experience (I've been manually curating for almost 4 years), but more what I observe in other power users.

In any case, that's even more reason to want to allocate rewards not only to those making great posts, but also to those who engage with others and thus use their obtained stake to improve the user experience and growth of the token and website.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

If someone has something against autovoting, say so. We really haven't had a conversation about this for POB. If your following a curation trial, you are still relying on a brain to curate, just not yours but a combination of other people's brains. I was wondering whether using this could mean the bot might change the vote you make or does the software avoid that somehow. You can do this at hive.vote. If we all follow each other we can give the posts the amounts they deserve without us all reading everything.

If I follow you and you follow me, could we cause a loop? You set to vote at 90% of my vote, and I do something similar, like to vote 95% of what you vote. So I vote 100% manually, the bot so votes as you with a 90% vote. Now the vote realizing the vote has changed with your account recasts the vote at 95% of 90%. The process repeats until the vote gets to zero or some point where rounding makes it constant.