But after biophil's comment, you seemed to affirm his accuracy - though you didn't expect folks to work that way.
biophil - One thing you left out of your model is the fact that Andy can cast most of his votes at 12.5% slider power, and then now and then cast a mega-vote at 100% power if he wants. This wouldn't change any weekly averages, but he could grab a bunch of influence in spurts. Still, he was almost certainly a lot better off before the change.Your response
Now a big question is are they going to "dial down" their 100% votes. Given that theyd be acting against their own interest, its hard ot believe they would.That seemed to click for me. But in your article you stated
To use shennanigator's model, if you could cast 40 100% votes per day worth 10 cents each before the change, after the change you would be able to cast 5 100% votes worth 34 cents after the change.In this example, the total voting power drops from 400 to 170? Does this point to the inconsistency in the total between now and after the change that I am apparently not grasping? Don't knock yourself out. What happens will happen. I'm just trying to understand.
Even in biophils comment that you quoted, he says "This wouldn't change any weekly averages, but he could grab a bunch of influence in spurts. Still, he was almost certainly a lot better off before the change."
Basically, what hes saying is that you'll still lose out overall, but you will still be able to cast more vote power with your 100% vote (just not much more)
Yes. So your 100% vote will be stronger, just not 8x stronger (like it would have to be for you to "break even" on going from 40 to 5 votes.)... How much stronger depends on how many inactive curators there are that get a bump from the change.
Active curators will definitely lose out.... it just has yet to be seen how much. If I had to make a spitball guess, I'd say theyll lose about 1/2 of their daily vote power in money terms.