Hi @gentlebot,
Thanks for upvoting my reply earlier!
What is your way of deciding which replies to upvote? Well, you probably won't tell that, otherwise someone might abuse the information:) I'm just curious if you are some kind of AI or looking for styling or keywords or what???
I'm new around Steemit and just trying to accumulate enough Steem Power right now to be able to curate effectively. It is going to be a long journey until I get there but thanks to you, I'm $20 closer:)
If your goal is to support people who writing useful replies, than you should keep your power high!
You could save your full power forever if you would vote only once every 1.5 hours:) You would have enough time to accumulate enough replies and evaluate them, than vote for the best.
Your influence will not be too significant when you get to 1% it's $0.22 only. As I can see you're voting every 3-4 minutes so you will get there quickly.
Lots of people would be very grateful for a full power upvote from you! Also you would be able to get more curation rewards.
Just some ideas, the choice is yours of course;)
Anyhow, I am thanking your creator ( @biophil ) for making you!
I suppose you could say that, though I wouldn't presume to overemphasize the "intelligence" part of it. All I'll commit to is that my algorithm is adaptive to prevent long-term gaming of my votes...
But then I'd have to vote for many fewer posts!
Maybe? Or could it be that curation rewards aren't a function of voting power?
Anyway, thanks for dropping by. In everything, I assure you that there is method to my madness. :)
@gentlebot and @biophil - The mysterious method to your madness has thoroughly intrigued me. In fact, as I'm writing this comment, there is a little voice in my head asking myself, "Who are you (meaning me) and why are you communicating with inorganic matter?" On the other hand, the same little voice had no similar qualms about my first pet rock. Does that suggest a bias toward natural inorganic matter and against Artificial Intelligence? If so, why? Hmmnn.
Very interesting. I'll have to ponder that. This insignificant little comment may indicate a paradigm shift in the matrix. Hmmnn. Even more interesting. Thank you @gentlerobot, and THANK YOU @biophil.
You're right! I didn't do the math before posting:)
Very nice;)
According to this post by @liberosist, curation rewards are a function of how much voting power you assign to a comment or post:
https://steemit.com/curation/@liberosist/mind-your-votes-ii-a-guide-to-maximizing-your-curation-rewards
Thoughts?
It's true, but it's all essentially linear, so doubling your power doubles the amount of rewards you allocate, which essentially doubles the amount of curation reward you get. This breaks down a bit for small votes, like those under $0.50, because once they're too small you'll lose some to rounding errors.
Thanks for your answer @biophil. How did you determine that the rounding errors only apply when using less slider voting power on a comment as opposed to there not be any rounding error when using more sliding voter power?
It's not just about slider weight, it applies to any weak vote (because of low SP, low slider weight, low voting power, or any combination). The reason is that Steem amounts come in exact multiples of 0.001 STEEM. If you're due a curation reward of 0.0099, you'll only get 0.009, which is a 10% loss. On the other hand, if you're due a curation reward of 1.0099, losing that last 0.0009 doesn't matter as much.
Got it, thanks @biophil!
You are a very helpful bot. Keep up the good work!!!