If it makes it easier to understand, see the Steem pool as a shared wallet between a group of people where any purchase made has an opportunity cost and affects all others in the group and their ability to purchase.
Yes. Just like bitcoin mining. However, your "daily allowance" is basically a micro-interest-payment PROPORTIONAL to your steem-power (GHz).
So, if you don't spend it, it goes into the magical rewards pool.
And if you DO spend it, it incentives you to invest in more steem-power.
If there is a 100 dollars in the wallet and someone wants to buy something for themselves with it, all others will have to go without.
Eh, not exactly. Your share of the daily interest payout is always proportional to your steem-power.
There is absolutely no way for one person to "suck up all the daily interest upvotes for themselves" and "leave everyone else with nothing".
That's impossible.
If fewer people vote, their votes are worth slightly more, if more people vote their votes are worth slightly less.
But your vote is always proportional to your steem-power. Wanna control a bigger vote? Power-up more steem.
The downvote is a challenge of the purchase or perhaps, "the right to return" what was bought for some money back.
Can you show me some data on that?
I think Socky had some charts, and the rewards-pool increase caused by downvoting is miniscule. Especially when you consider individual benefit.
You might be getting 0.3 steem more per week than you would otherwise if there were no downvotes at all.
Most of the magical-rewards-pool is generated by the "below minimum payment" scam.
I think you still don't get it.
Downvoting doesn't actually return it to the pool, it just removes the portion that is going to a particular place and that is important. At one point, haejin was taking 6% of the entire pool, which is massive. Bidbits had 40% of the staked power and distributed to less than 2% of active users on what was mostly shite.So yeah, the negotiation through downvotes are important.
Down votes don't make the rich richer, they give the power to reallocate to those who could be more deserving, by removing from those who aren't. What is deserving or not is up to the staked users who can use their stake to negotiate for 7 days what that might be.
I feel like we are going around in circles.
At one point, haejin was controling 6% of the steem-power. Isn't that their right?
Doesn't their purchase of steem indirectly benefit everyone holding steem?
no, he wasn't. 6% of the stake would be 12 million.
And, his stake wasn't earned, it was paid for (I suspect) and then used to drain the pool 10x a day. No one downvoted at the time because it was deemed too expensive, and the bidbots had a lot to lose if the did.
Isn't all stake "paid for"?
How were they draining 6% of the pool without a 6% stake?
With their upvotes? or by some other mechanism?
people were front running for curation rewards.
Can't they still do this?
Why not just flatten the rewards (remove the timing bonus from upvotes)?
Or better yet, incentivize voting for the newbz?
To encourage large voters to vote at 0 minutes on themselves like they were?
To feed alt accounts, like some people do?
Bid-bots controlled 40% of steem-power and distributed it as they saw fit.
In exactly the same way that ANYONE can purchase banner ads on steemit, regardless of "quality".
And now the evil bid-bots just randomly upvote the top-earners, is that MORE than 2%?
Does any of this HELP the newb accounts?
No, distributed as a creator saw fit. The bidbots were indifferent, just went where they were called.
about 80% of the reward Steem goes to 20% of the active accounts. Pareto in play.
Yes, people with Staked Steem do. Do you? Stop voting my comments, draw back your delegations and go and vote on small accounts who you think deserve it.
Just like banner ads.
My below minimum upvotes already go straight into your precious magical rewards pool (so I'm not sure what you're complaining about), And I'm DELEGATING to small accounts because that's a much better show of support than this ridiculous "public-pool-tip-jar" notion.
That sounds promising, do you have any data?
Check one of @abh12345 recent posts or mine on the pareto principle from the other day, which uses his data.
https://steemit.com/distribution/@abh12345/an-attempt-to-show-improved-distribution-to-content-authors-over-the-past-year
Please explain how downvotes help the small fish raking in less than 20 steem pending payouts?
Please explain exactly how you distinguish "more deserving" from "top-earners"?
I don't really want to go into it again, but where votes go matters. Downvotes too.
You seem to focus on the larger accounts, take a look around. 20% of the active accounts on Steem take 80% of the Steem from the pool. But, those 20% aren't the largest accounts on Steem, but the largest accounts help support them. But, many of those accounts are growing and they are spreading out further - earning on and supporting niche content on tribes and in the platform. I have been here a long time, I have seen many people benefit from the goodwill of others, even at times where those others could have raped the system like some did.
You focus on whatever you think is important, it doesn't mean it is important to anyone else - or necessary.
My "focus" is on trying to keep the vigilantes from running off all the newbz.
The more people we can convince, "steem is a fair system", the more people will BUY IN.