It is nice to see a few more people beginning to recognize that the 50/50 split is less than that when you take into account the SPS
I don't think you understand what this post was about, at all. I mean you are literally one of the idiots that "scares the little guy" with "it's nice to see that more people are scarring the little guy" among your repertoire of FUD.
Let me break it down for any other idiots out there:
75% out of ever dwindling less than 30% (being very generous) of organic votes and ever dwindling is not OK, it's not
OK.
not OK.
Trying to scare people into "they're taking author rewards away" when the intention and direction is to encourage more people to reward authors by making rewarding them as profitable or more profitable than vote selling is despicable. Y-a fucktard.
It truly is designed to give the author more. Will it work? Yes. A smaller percentage of something is more than a larger percentage of nothing. A very simple concept.
Will the people participate and push the right buttons to get the most out of this new plan? Unfortunately, I'm worried the people will screw it up. I won't be part of that club though. I'll point out the issues for a couple years like I did before, be ignored, and wait for everyone to catch up.
You completely misunderstand curation rewards. They are not any incentive to curate. The only purpose of being able to extract rewards when casting a substantial vote is additive to rewards extractable by self-voting. Bidbots will just gain more from selling their votes, and this will encourage delegation by profiteers.
It is completely the opposite from encouraging capital gains and reveals your bizarre lack of comprehension of basic invesment principles.
Please do refrain from ad hominems aimed at people who do not agree with you. You, if you are capable of honesty and conscience, will be motivated to apologize for such remarks if I am right. Since discussing these matters does not require denigrating insults, there is no need to incur such liability. Reasonable people can agree to disagree without being insulting. Ad hominems are evidence of a lack of reasonable arguments, not superior arguments.
Do give that thought.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
@valued-customer, I'm commenting here as a way to get around potential downvotes, which is strange, but whatever.
Which remarks are you referring to?
I agree.
Bernie's was more of a game though. Send money, get a random vote, might win, might lose. I tried it once. Sent something ridiculously low, not even 10SBD, got a $70 vote. Beginners luck, I knew better than to do it again, so I never did. I hate gambling. I too believe most have good intentions. Those with the bad intentions will get the most attention though. I'll get to write some new roasts and parodies I guess.
It was @randowhale.
oh how i miss randowhale, feels like forever ago, so nostalgic