I don't really agree with much of what you said here but this:
The EIP and the non-linear reward curve make upvotes worth less on posts with smaller payouts which pretty much make it impossible for anyone to vote on those. Instead, it's far more profitable from a curation point of view to go for the ones you know will get a ton of upvotes. Those that do show support pretty much also get punished for it with decreased curation rewards.
It would be nice if you folks stopped spreading that myth. My highest curation rewards come from posts I vote late on, without knowing if the post will do well after my vote, and many of them have low rewards when I vote.
.png)
That's how it is for me all the time. My biggest rewards come from taking a gamble. Honest curation is a thing. You don't need to be in some kind of a circle either. You don't need to post butt kissery. All this whining is annoying.
Why are you buying something that is free? I've been here three years, never purchased a vote. What for? That does nothing.
Upvotes are worth less on small posts. 100% on this one gives 0.08$ (on higher voting Power) 100% upvote on a big post adds 0.13$...
I agree with this! Math is math. Even so, I vote for a lot of people who never break the reward curve so I know I'm losing to the maximizers in the long run despite a few lucky curation picks here and there. Hope you don't leave steem though because serious sports gamblers here are a rare breed.
I know that, but if the post is worthwhile and you're curating honestly, there's a strong chance that vote value goes up, once more votes come in, if they do. The low value initially isn't permanent, unless nobody else was interested.
If nobody else comes along, that producer still gets more than nothing, which is why I think it's bad form to discourage people from voting with that myth you're promoting.
Congratulations, you are the worst curator on the platform in terms of gaining rewards! And I mean that honestly, it used to be me, I put a lot of effort into it, and I was really proud of it. It means your votes are going to authors they can really benefit, albeit less so than it did before hf20.
What it doesn't mean is that because your personal curation rewards happen to be reversed from the way the general math works, that the entire general math is a myth. Votes do mean more, and earn more, on posts that are voted highly. In many cases late votes on highly-rewarded posts reward more than early votes on low-rewarded posts. This is the nature of the "convergent linear" system, and your personal experience with voting on a few posts doesn't falsify it.
#sbi-skip
I just vote. I don't really care what happens. Showing my support to whoever, whenever. If things go well, they go well. If it's good for them, it's good for me. If it's not good for them, at least I tried, can't win them all.
Yes, I realize if I place my vote down on a post with high rewards, my vote gives more, or whatever you're saying.
In the past you've been kind of a jerk to me so I'm not sure if you're talking to me just to be a dick again... or what. Regardless, have a nice day.