We have nothing against the bots, but if we let them have their way, they siphon off rewards that could be channeled to deserving authors.
How can voting for content, and thereby rewarding the author, be considered unfair to the author?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think it is a timing thing. If they upvote in the 25 minute to 30 minute timeframe, then they get a bigger cut (I think). If they waited longer, the author retains more, but the voters get a smaller portion for voting later. There is some sort of formula behind it all, and I am no expert, but this should be the general idea.
I think it's the opposite. The rewards are split 75% author 25% curator. But if the curator votes within the first 30 minutes, some of their curation award goes to the author as well. So early voting helps the author. Late voting helps the curator. In order to maximise awards to himself, the curator wants to vote as close to the 30 min mark but before a whale does. If a whale votes first, then the whale gets most of the curator awards.
Ok, that could be correct... but what were they talking about pertaining to bot voting then and how it affects rewards?
We wish to attract members with significant SP holding so the authors are rewarded more. Curation rewards are an attractive incentive to help us with our project. So, in effect, it's unfair to not just one author but the entire project, and all authors.
Wouldn't the bot have to front-run the whale? Not sure that's even possible unless they have a mechanism to get insider knowledge.
This seems like it's intended to help "members" more than "authors"...
All members in the team follow this rule as well. We always vote after the whale votes have hit.
We have a general rule not to vote on these posts with our personal accounts until later. The whale curation rewards is just part of the economics of it since we have to pay for the project.