RE: Open Letter to Ned and Dan: You Badly Need a Communications/Community/Content Expert and I Hereby Nominate @stellabelle or @donkeypong For That Job
Looking through your link, I really don't see where there's disagreement. Not sure how you could say it's "absolutely" anything.
If your article is accurate, then I said the same thing. Thanks for your article btw, it was helpful and lined up with how it had been explained to me earlier.
Because of the slider, it doesn't change how much voting power you have overall. It just means that you can give one single vote a higher percentage of your total voting power for the day.
Again, this is absolutely untrue. Your total voting power will change. If you're an active curator, it will go down. If you can now cast $50 worth of upvotes a day, you will be able to cast some dollar amount less than $50.
Hiding behind subjectivity doesn't change this, and neither does misrepresenting it as a feature. Or a bug fix for that matter.
Oh, I agree that it's not a bug fix. I'm still not grasping the nuance you're stating.
I have $40 worth of voting power for 24 hours today and I vote 40 times at 100%, each gets a buck.
I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way I get the same $40 worth.
Is that wrong?
I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way, I get the same $40 worth.
Is that wrong?
Yes, that's absolutely wrong. As I explain in detail in that post. I'm not sure if you just didn't read it or what. I literally have no idea how you could read that and think the above quote is what I believe or was trying to explain. In fact, in the comment section to that post, i even accepted a bet that the above statement wasn't true.
If you start at 40/day max before the fork, you will end at somewhere between $5 and $40 max per day after the fork. Either extremely is unlikely, and it will probably end up somewhere near the middle. It mostly depends on how many people prefork were casting their full 40 (the more that were the less you will lose)
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)
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?
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.
People who only vote 5x a day (freds) are getting a huge bonus.
Right now, infrequent voters are leaving a huge amount of meat on the bone. The change to a 5 vote target effectively optimizes them. The extra money infulence they get has to come from somewhere.
Now the question is, how many of them are there? Its tough to speculate. More than none, for sure.
Ahhh, finally. Thanks for taking the time. It was the total pool that messed me up. As soon as I saw that part, it all clicked.
So my perspective was certainly too simplistic.
Thanks again.
Looking through your link, I really don't see where there's disagreement. Not sure how you could say it's "absolutely" anything.
If your article is accurate, then I said the same thing. Thanks for your article btw, it was helpful and lined up with how it had been explained to me earlier.
Again, this is absolutely untrue. Your total voting power will change. If you're an active curator, it will go down. If you can now cast $50 worth of upvotes a day, you will be able to cast some dollar amount less than $50.
Hiding behind subjectivity doesn't change this, and neither does misrepresenting it as a feature. Or a bug fix for that matter.
Oh, I agree that it's not a bug fix. I'm still not grasping the nuance you're stating.
I have $40 worth of voting power for 24 hours today and I vote 40 times at 100%, each gets a buck.
I have $40 worth of voting power after update and i vote 40 times at 12.5% and each gets a buck? Or I can vote 5 times at 100%? Either way I get the same $40 worth.
Is that wrong?
Yes, that's absolutely wrong. As I explain in detail in that post. I'm not sure if you just didn't read it or what. I literally have no idea how you could read that and think the above quote is what I believe or was trying to explain. In fact, in the comment section to that post, i even accepted a bet that the above statement wasn't true.
If you start at 40/day max before the fork, you will end at somewhere between $5 and $40 max per day after the fork. Either extremely is unlikely, and it will probably end up somewhere near the middle. It mostly depends on how many people prefork were casting their full 40 (the more that were the less you will lose)
But after biophil's comment, you seemed to affirm his accuracy - though you didn't expect folks to work that way.
Your response That seemed to click for me. But in your article you stated 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.
Because the total daily reward pool is fixed?
If that's the case, then THAT is what wasn't clicking for me. I was stuck on individual numbers.
Its two main reasons:
Right now, infrequent voters are leaving a huge amount of meat on the bone. The change to a 5 vote target effectively optimizes them. The extra money infulence they get has to come from somewhere.
Now the question is, how many of them are there? Its tough to speculate. More than none, for sure.
Ahhh, finally. Thanks for taking the time. It was the total pool that messed me up. As soon as I saw that part, it all clicked.
So my perspective was certainly too simplistic.
Thanks again.