Throw some numbers at me. I'm still stuck on how the vote buyer is to make up the $42.5 loss I pointed out above. What I'm seeing there is a huge risk, meaning vote buying loses its appeal and that translates into vote sellers not being able to make money at all.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Because vote selling services will adjust the rates. The current system for sure has more appeal to passive investors then the one that would come if the proposal is accepted. But the profit maximization behavior points away from curation which means nothing really will change.
This will not be the case. What will happen is that you wont be spending 100$ to get 115$ on the post prior to payout (if thats what youre referring to). You will spend 100$ to get 115$ after payout happens and curation is calculated in since the rates will be adjusted. The vote selling will be adjusted for the 50% curation.
The liquid assets that passive investors would get will be reduced, but that loss will be exchanged for more curation % from vote selling.
The passive investors will not like this change, because getting more liquid SBD/STEEM rather then less, is superior to increased SP gain, but if they decide not to pack their bags, they will still not curate because selling their votes for "less liquid assets + increased curation" from vote selling is still by far the better choice for them. Its the profit maximizing choice combined with 0 effort.
The gap between vote seller earnings and curator earnings will remain. They will lose on liquid token accumulation but wont lose anything in overall token accumulation.
So who is the loser? The non boting/upvote buying creators.
In order to get $115 after payout, under a 50/50 model, the post would require $230 before payout. Where does that extra $115 come from if the vote seller only spent $100? There's no way vote selling can be profitable if spending $100 directed $230 worth of rewards to a post. I doubt they have the SP or Voting Mana to meet that demand, meaning they'd be limited to selling fewer votes.
Exactly. You wont be spending a 100$, you would be spending less because you will be getting less. Thats the adjustment.
The vote sellers get less liquid assets.
Say a vote seller has a 50$ vote.. To get that vote right now you pay around 37 SBD or around 35$.
If the proposal changes curation %... Then you wont pay 37SBD. Paying something around 23SBD will probably make it as profitable as it is now for the vote buyer. Not taking into account what might happen under the hood.
So yes, you are right, at first glance vote selling is less profitable. Its less profitable in liquid assets. He still gets more curation and still gets some liquid assets. You didnt really do much to encourage him to curate.
This is actually good for the vote buyers in the short term. Now they pay less for larger votes. It takes them now around 400$ to get top trending, with the proposal change it will probably be down to 250$ or something in that vicinity.
Im telling you this will make things even worse. Screw things up even more.
We need a UI change and bot upvote filtering.
The math seems wonky and as someone who could purchase the vote, it doesn't sound appealing. That's me though, I'm tight with my money.
The lowered amount to trend sounds appealing to someone like me who will not purchase the vote. With less rewards being pulled from the pool, more rewards will be applied to our posts. The way it works: if we had enough SP to downvote every post that used bots, all other posts would increase in value as they sit in our blogs. I could be wrong, but that's how the reward pool worked last time I checked, awhile ago. If I'm wrong, then the lowered cost to trend wouldn't boost the value of our posts naturally therefore losing it's appeal.
Ups and downs, pros and cons to everything, right?
I agree with the UI change. I've written about that many times, dating all the way back to December of last year. If that only sweeps problems under the rug though, and hides cases of abuse, it's not good. Some plagiarists have boosted posts to trending in the past. It's comical. Much like walking into a store, introducing yourself to everyone by name, and kindly announcing the fact you're about to steal as much as you can carry out the door.
Anyway. Good talk. Thanks for taking the time.
P.S. If I did piss you off or insult you before, that wasn't my intention, but I do apologize. The downvote wasn't personal. Those never are when I use them.
edited post above..