Upvoting is certainly a better strategy in terms of curation rewards. It is absolutely not a better strategy in terms of correcting overly top-heavy of rewards that result from concentrated whale/bot/trail voting. The problem with your first analysis is assuming the equivalent alternative is upvoting 10 posts. It isn't. The alternative would be upvoting hundreds of posts, which is impossible due to limited vote power in addition to being impractical. The math behind this is in a post by @sigmajin, though from what I've seen of your posts I'm sure you are capable of working it out yourself.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Ok, I just read sigmajin's post and..I get it. From a pure mathematical perspective, what you do makes perfect sense.
What you've got is a PR problem. I'll grant you are very polite. When you say "Hi there, I liked your post but I'm going to have to downvote due to <insert complex math that 90% won't understand>", it just..looks bad. It makes you look bad, it makes Steemit look bad. People will go to minds.com and complain about how the whales are bullies and censorship here.
I don't know. Maybe this goes back to the whole (N * log N) thing. I guess that would help with this.
Well said. I agree about changing the reward curve.