If this was the case, this is the first time it was explained to me so clearly. Which makes me speculate that many don't understand it at all.
Is there a way to confirm this?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If this was the case, this is the first time it was explained to me so clearly. Which makes me speculate that many don't understand it at all.
Is there a way to confirm this?
Sorry, do you mean the maths?
5 x 5 = 25
10 x 10 = 100
As the weight doubles (from 5 to 10), the payout quadruples (from 25 to 100)
If you upvote 10 and I then downvote 5, despite only having half your weight, I've taken 75% off the payout.
No yes, I get it... I understood it... I'm simply stating that, this would be the proposed HF idea.
Which by the way, makes me request something from you.
Would it be too ballsy ('merican word here) to ask you to make one of your explanation videos on how flags would work better under this system, making it stupid simple for people to understand.
The focus being on flags, and policing abuse...
Gotcha :)
I don't remember where I read that it was the plan, but it was definitely official, I think perhaps steemitblog?
They're going to cut the penalty period from 30 to 15 mins, and return lost curation rewards to the pool, instead of sending it back to the author.
I touched on the amplifying nature of quadratic rewards in that video, including that stat that 25% of the total weight could reduce the payout by 50%; but I didn't go into a great deal of detail.
We'll probably see more discussion around quadratic rewards soon anyway, as it looks like Ned will be bringing it back when he brings in account based (rather than stake based) voting for an SMT he's hinted at.