Target Votes of 5 per Day instead of 40
We are changing the target number of votes per day from 40 to 5 so that more people keep their voting power below 100%. The purpose of this change is to rebalance power toward normal users and away from bots. You can still vote as often as you like, this change merely impacts the speed at which voting power is consumed.
This change is ridiculous. Don't you think this is something that should have been debated openly first?
I'd genuinely like to know why you think it's ridiculous. Personally I don't mind that the power of my votes will be decreased the more I vote. Right now the current system is a little silly IMHO, I vote like 20-30 times a day and never go below 95% voting power.
what? i'm under 80% at the end of most days...
I've cast 26 votes in the last 24 hours and am sitting at 97% lol
Same here. I usually use at least 40 votes per day - on my blog posts, people who comment on them, curating other content, and occasional comments on those posts. I don't even want to have to think about rationing votes or using a slider for my $0.01 vote.
that 5 rule voting counts only when voting at 100% power??
From what I understand, each vote at 100% will reduce your voting power by ~4%. So if you vote once at 100%, you'll goto 96%, vote again, you'll goto 92.16%, so on and so forth. 5 votes will reduce you by approximately 20%, which will take 1 day to regenerate.
if this mean, that my vote (if I vote once per day) will be worth 8 times more, then this is great to show users, that they have greater impact! :)
Of course they want an open debate. Thats why they put this issue at the very top of the list of changes.
If they were trying to sneak it though without an open debate, they would have put it at the very bottom, under the heading "bug fixes" or someth... oh hey wait a second.
That's what this post is about. Please note the big Feedback Wanted header. Nothing has been deployed yet. I'm tempted to add a snarky comment about pitchforks, but alas, I have refrained. ;)
Especially given this:
Seems quite clear this is an opportunity for discussion. Steemit is doing on a good job on this one, let's acknowledge that.
Agreed. We've already seen Dan close issues as "won't fix" when people disagreed with the approach. I've been watching the releases and the discussions and I'm quite happy with what I'm seeing so far.
The feature set of a release candidate is usually not up for discussion. They are usually just a final chance to root out any bugs before the release goes live... If the intention is to put this up for discussion, they picked a strange part of the development cycle for it.
You may be right. I interpreted the "feedback wanted" and one-week delay as wanting input but the presentation is confusing and could be done more clearly.
It's a release candidate....
What are your expectations for communication beyond the core development team? What could they do to make you happier? Ridiculous is a strong word choice. Seems accusatory to me as in "worthy of ridicule." I just don't understand where all that negativity comes from.
There are two ways to answer this: Does someone who owns over 50% of the power in a company should ask the community anything? On the the one hand: no.
But on steemit, as we feel are PART of what's happening here - a thing I never felt on FB + I never thought that Zuckerberg should ask me anything - it seems that it will only further alienate the core users [ basically all the people commenting here with 58+ rep ]. Not necessarily because the changes are bad but because we are not listened...
YET!! This is a pre-release and a chance to voice our concerns. So maybe we will be listened to and taken in considerations...
Are we not debating right now? Do we need more than a week debating?