Yes, you started doing that after the rewards had already dropped by 90%+.
It isn't too late to burn the rewards you received from 'collusive whale voting'
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, you started doing that after the rewards had already dropped by 90%+.
It isn't too late to burn the rewards you received from 'collusive whale voting'
Does it matter if the rewards have dropped? Surely it is the same amount of vests one receives from an upvote, regardless of the current price of steem? So if @dantheman had been accepting payouts, their lower value now would represent a much larger value in future once the price of STEEM rises.
I'm no expert, but that makes sense to me. If I'm wrong, please clarify how it works.
[nested reply]
I don't think it makes sense to back and forth on whether the price of steem might rise. We probably agree on that.
Nevertheless it doesn't change the fact that Dan was perfectly comfortable receiving, and not declining, rewards from just the same form of affinity voting that he labels here as collusive bad whales (and which was pointed out repeatedly as such by myself and others), and that he did so at a time when the financial benefit to him was a lot larger than the financial sacrifice he makes now by declining.
His approach of taking advantage of the system rules when it greatly benefited him but then attacking and vilifying others based on suspicions of doing the same thing, and adding labeling and name calling on top of that is incredibly harmful.
What I'm saying is that taking a share of the reward pool when the price of STEEM is very high and everyone is getting something is expected. Declining it when the reward pool is low is in my opinion admirable.
It is 5.32am where I am and I'm getting very tired, so I'm going to go to sleep. I'm happy to discuss this in greater detail when my brain is working at full capacity. Good night.
Perhaps there is a notable difference between the "environment" which Dan was allegedly "gaming" the system and today's environment?
Now that steemit has gained some footing, in terms of user adoption and blockchain/ platform growth, perhaps it behooves the whales to stop with their abusing of the system and/or hypocritical ways. In other words, equal actions between past and present may still equate to far more amplified consequences in the present condition(s) of Steem/ Steemit.
I think it's time to forgive and forget past actions and focus on the present. Good things can happen from here, if we approach the current circumstances with a clear mind. The majority of our collective focus should be aimed at how to grow our collective network that is Steemit/ Busy/ etc.
Fruitless arguments are a waste of intelligence and, with that, potential, IMO.
Mostly you are wrong because there is no guarantee that STEEM will rise. It could rise, it could fall, or it could stay the same. The most sensible unbiased analysis uses the current price at the time of the action being taken.
There are other factors that are related to that or not to varying degrees such as the rewards having been cashed out at higher prices (and could, theoretically be used to buy much more stake now), the rewards in STEEM/VESTS being cut by about 40% in HF16. The stake share of rewards declining over time due to hyperinflation and the VESTS exchange rate, there being much more competition from high quality/earning posters now, and probably others.
Nevertheless, even if I were to accept what you say, how does declining reward now turn back the clock on six months of not declining them while receiving votes from 'collusive whales' of the population I described? I don't believe it does. Only returning those rewards would.
I had thought you seemed very intelligent based on my previous reads of your comments, but this comment seems to suggest otherwise. Whether the price of STEEM does rise or not is irrelevant.
The fact is, it might.
That is enough of a reason for someone to choose to receive payout, on the off chance that the vests they receive today might one day be worth 1000X more in future.
There is no potential risk of loss, so there is no need for a sensible unbiased analysis. We are not trading cryptocurrency here.
I feel that @dan's choice to decline payout seems to be a genuine attempt not to subtract money from a reward pool that is already very low. But, if you can tell me another reason why he would do such a thing, I am all ears.