Sadly, very few witnesses even replied to the offer of $1.7M worth of support for them! I'm not sure if that is because they don't pay attention to the chain or because they disagree that misuse of downvotes is a big problem for hive.
:D
Were you expecting an invitation to dinner or something? That is less than 2% of what is needed to get into the T20 and it isn't even yours - meaning that if you lose the proxy, they lose the value of the vote. Stop being so full of yourself.
It is nice that you twisted @deathwing's words to fit your narrative a bit too. Classy.
If people don't want 2% of what they need to achieve their goal then there are either very comfortably there, without any concern of losing the position - or they don't want it very much. You might not have thought through your words here, but you are literally shitting on every person who works for a living and gets paid in chunks to achieve their goal. Not a good look.
Sure, the vote will stop if the proxy ends, but literally all people need to do is advocate for free speech, hardly a tough job.
I spoke to Deathwing for quite a long time in private and I did not twist his words in the slightest.
You looking for some kind of recognition is not a good look mate. People vote witnesses all the time, they don't need to make announcements about it and then complain and then call them out for not bowing and saying thank you for it.
This is a pathetic false dichotomy. Grow up.
He seems to have felt the need to clarify what you said.
Also, on the comment he linked, Deathwing quoted numbers from your post.
Which is according to some report you have faith in.
I don't know if you remember, but even during the "haejin flag wars" it was something like 2%. I am pretty sure that this 4-8% is utter nonsense. There is about 150M vested, @blocktrades (main account) has about 6M, so about 4% of the vest. To combat 6M of 10x upvotes, BT would have to downvote 6M 10x - but he has 2.5 free votes to use. That means he would need to have 24M HP to downvote 6M worth of upvotes - and use all of the downvote power. He would also have to find 60M vests worth of posts to downvote, or around 3600 dollars worth. That is for the 4% - for the 8% he would need to downvote with 48M vests 2.5x - or 7200 dollars worth. Bye bye all of trending's first 100 posts or something and, it would mean that a full 1/3rd of all staked HIVE is using their full allocation of downvotes.
I am not great with numbers - but yours don't add up.
And I will also add, that for someone to actually benefit significantly from the downvoting they do, they would need to not only be downvoting with 4x BT-sized stake, they would also have to have open posts that are very heavily voted for them to be impacted from the return to the pool.
For example, if BT ,used his stake as I suggested above and had 10 open posts a day that he voted 100% and they sit at $360 each. After all of the downvoting, he would get a 4-8% benefit on them, meaning that they would move from 360 to a *whopping 374-388. Not only this, he would also have to have those 10 posts a day (70 posts a week) not downvoted until payout.
If you really think people downvote to earn more on their posts, you are lacking so much information on how this platform works and should rethink how you talk about it. If you don't think this, you are then purposefully misrepresenting in order to influence your readers - either way -
it is not a good look.
A 4% daily guaranteed gain is a hell of a lot more than many investments offer. All that is required is to farm out enough content creation channels anonymously that you have your full quota of upvotes pointed to your own sockpuppet accounts (worth doing if you have a lot of HP).. Then you just make sure you downvote others to the max. If you happen to have a particular political ideology then all the better, you get to shut down topics at the same time.
This is very simple and an accurate assessment of the potentiality here. Big downvoters are big upvoters.
You seem to have issues understanding the math here.
So, using BT as the example, he would have to downvote with 24M HIVE power to remove 4% - but it would also have to be on posts that have 24M worth of upvotes. AND, he would have to have 10 open posts a day that he upvotes 100% himself AND don't get downvoted by anyone else. He doesn't - he has zero open posts and, he doesn't downvote to full capacity with 24M Hive either - he doesn't have 24M staked afaik.
So, if he did all of this and had 1 post open he voted at 360 dollars, he would gain about 50 cents on it, after downvoting 17.5 times in the week with 24M Hive Power. Totally worth it!
You are a nut if you think 24M worth of stake would go through all of this trouble and risk for 4% gain on the vote, when they can just vote whatever content for 50%.
lols. Senseless statement.......
you really should think through what you know about this chain and recalibrate what you say on it.
The 4% figure is the average I have seen for the amount that the total value of downvotes equates to as part of the available reward pool. So in other words, if all downvotes that are cast are actually removing stake (which is ultimately their purpose) then 4% of the total reward pool is returned to the pool as a result of downvotes globally.
If one individual account, such as BT in your example, does NOT downvote at all, then they will still benefit from the overall amount returned to the reward pool via downvoting on whatever posts they upvote - this is by design of the blockchain. If they DO downvote then they increase the overall percentage returned and they benefit from that too.
So in order for my point to generate worthwhile returns, all that is needed is for the downvoting account to farm out content that gets upvoted a lot and for them to expend all their downvotes. If you look at the downvote tracker you will see that the vast majority of all downvote value comes from a very small number of accounts, with roughly the top 15 most heavily downvoting accounts resulting in about 70% of ALL downvotes. Therefore, these 15 large accounts have the ability to add on a few percent to the total amount removed via downvoting ever day.
For reference, when @kennyskitchen started downvoting hbd stabilizer recently using his big account, the percent of the reward pool being returned almost doubled straight away. Just one account had that ability. If my maths are wrong, you are welcome to show why - based on the numbers provided.
I have demonstrated how large accounts can create quite big shifts in the rewards here already. The effort involved to make this work is minimal and the amounts to be gained are sufficient that with take above a certain point it becomes worthwhile. It is doubly so if you have a political agenda. You can call me a nut if you like, I am just applying logic to the system.
Now I am just skimming.
I know enough about the design - you should start learning a bit too.
But, it gets spread to every post on the platform. How do you not understand this?? double, triple, go 10x - makes very little difference for any individual downvoter's posts.
You should look around for a shovel, you keep digging yourself in deeper.
You seem to think the largest accounts on the platform are going to go after scraps of percentages using a complex network of alts, risking downvotes and getting unvoted as witnesses - it is nonsensical.
I explained why I voted because I am voting as part of a proxy chain who want the votes to go to witnesses who support free speech in specific ways. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 'calling out' or 'not saying thankyou' as nothing I have said in this thread or any other is relevant to those ideas.
It's according to a report that I coded. If it's wrong then people are welcome to correct me. The report is based on HiveSQL data.
You can see the summary of the numbers I am referencing here.
By all means show any errors there may be in there, I welcome corrections.
You have missed the point of this again and your numbers are irrelevant.
As said, for Hive to be returned to the pool from down votes, it has to remove upvotes. If a post is voted to 10 dollars and has 1000 dollars of downvotes on it, 10 dollars worth of Hive is returned to the pool, not 1000.
For example, if I downvote your comment here 10 dollars - it returnsnothing to the pool as it has no votes on it.
Go back and rework your code to actually look at what has been removed, because counting the size of downvotes informs nothing.
You are correct that the downvotes remove nothing unless there is something to remove from their targeted post, yes. However, in my experience, the downvotes are not cast on posts where they will have no effect and the handful of largest downvoters are careful to adjust their downvotes to ensure that they don't waste their downvote pool achieving nothing. The net result is that from what I have seen, most downvotes do reduce payouts.
I am happy to adjust the code to be more accurate and to take into account actual reductions in the way you are highlighting, no problem.
That is the current rewards fund.
I am quite sure that your calculations are wrong. PArt of the reason is that you are only calculating half of the value - so, you are saying that the vote is worth for example "100", but forgetting that a post reward is calculated in HBD AND HIVE. This is important - but if you don't understand why, you probably aren't going to get your calculations right next time either.
As far as I am aware, from my study of the global parameters on the blockchain - based on various sources of documentation (none of which are verbose or totally clear) - the figure you have pasted here is for the total rewards fund, including the inflation that goes to the worker proposals and witnesses.
The figure I have used is the one labelled 'pending rewarded vesting' which I have then split according to the percentage in the global params that denotes how much is awarded only to authors of content. I am open to being wrong in my use of these parameters because I have never seen them fully documented anywhere in a way that leaves nothing to the imagination - but I am not seeing that demonstrated in your comments here.