Today I upvoted two accounts at 25% in this order: @ourfreesociety and @oyddodat. These are the second and third upvotes I have cast today, and my VP is nominal to provide rewards.
For some reason, even after refreshing the page, while @oyddodat received .005 STU and .01 Steem in rewards for my upvote, @ourfreesociety received .000 STU and .00 Steem. VP is not the issue, as I upvoted @ourfreesociety first, and if VP depletion were the reason, @oyddodat would have received the lower value.
Anyone who can shed light on this matter would be greatly appreciated if they did so. It seems like something sketchy is going on with upvotes, and if it is not some kind of strange error or bug limited to me or @ourfreesociety, we should know what is happening.
You upvoted something 14 days old, you cannot change the value of any post or comment past 7 days.
lol
Doh! Mystery explained.
Thanks!
Congratulations @valued-customer! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
There's a big difference between a frontend server showing the wrong information and there being an error in the foundation of the blockchain that distributes rewards incorrectly.
I could make a frontend that says everyone is getting paid $1000 on every post. Doesn't make it true.
How many frontends did you check?
Eh nevermind I checked busy and steempeak and they all say the same thing.
Interesting.
I upvoted it for 25% just for kicks.
Seems to be blacklisted across multiple frontends.
Will be interesting to see if it pays out anything in 7 days.
That is very strange indeed. Maybe @youtube is buying out @steem, and that's why they're powering down. Might explain EIP.
Thanks for adding good data, and having a look.
If you look here:
https://steemit.com/@ourfreesociety/comments
The last comment shown is like 10 days ago... so the node refuses to even acknowledge that the comment was made.
When I went there I saw a comment only three hours old and upvoted it. @ourfreesociety did receive .01 Steem from that upvote. Perhaps I just upvoted an old comment past the payout before, as @markymark said. The comment dates indicate that was the case.
You guys won't believe what just happened? After I wrote the comment below concerning the topic I proceeded to upvote first @edicted at 100% which gave him '0.00' then @valued-customer at 100% which gave him '0.00' and just after that 100% again for @edicted on a 2nd comment he had made in this string, which the value given for my 3rd vote cast was shown for edicted as '0.01' which was my final vote in this particular string of comments. As you can see the order by which I voted for you is exactly as just explained.
My first vote - Edicted received zero.
My 2nd vote - Valued Customer received zero
My 3rd and last vote - Edicted received 0.01
What is most strange my first two votes would should have given 'more not less', but upon voting the 3rd and final time Edicted received '0.01'. How is this possible?
Here are screen shots for any nay sayers.
My first 100% vote cast Edicted on this comment:
My 2nd vote cast for valued customer at 100% on this comment:
My third 100% vote cast and the only vote I gave that is showing it gave a transfer of value at '0.01' to the Edicted account:
https://steemworld.org/@kawaiicrush date June 7 2019 (for those reading in the future)
Anyone know how to figure out what exactly is going on?
because the underlying price is fluctuating. Right now 400SP ist to low to have any effect on the upvote. I mean it counts only full 0,01cent Upvotes. 0,009 is simply not shown.
If one person votes with 0,009 then it shows 0,00 if you vote with 0,001 it jumps to 0,01.
Perhaps it is based on the low price. It is very possible. I am trying to get to the bottom of it by asking questions. I have never seen this before. The price must be pretty unstable if this is indeed the case.
The price? It's stable. On a stable downtrend lel.
What I wonder is... do they destroy Steemit on purpose? I mean you read the Ninja-mining thread of steemit or at least the issue with unfair mining?
When Block.one and any other US-based business is forced to make a KYC, because when the issuer of the token is a central party, the SEC has to decide,...then Steem(it) must be a gray area too. And being in unclear regulatory water can end badly.
Yes however if I gave a full 100% all three times. The first vote given would be largest of the three.. and by all means the 3rd and final vote would certainly be the smallest of the three 100% votes given. There was no gap in time between them. They were all done within seconds of each other. And all at 100%. If you have a jug of orange juice, and you pour three glasses at breakfast.. naturally the jug will have less and less and your pour into your families glasses, not more! The contents of the jug/resources should deplete as it is dispensed, not increase. And I had more than enough to give 0.01 as little as that might be, or sound. There is no reason my vote should give 0.00 whatsoever when voting 100% power on someone. Here I will vote on you right now at 100%. Let us examine what happens. Ok so it is showing 0.00. If you are saying my vote only gave the people (my first two votes I placed) 0.009 in value, then how would it magically at the same ratio of voting 100% give 0.01? Would it not decrease? As I am draining my power via the act of voting at 100% on people, not increasing it.
I see that both you and I voted on the third comment, while only you voted on the first. Our combined votes delivered nominal VP to create a payout. That's what appears to have happened.
Yes in my case perhaps that is the reason. I thought it could have had a logical explanation but was quite curious after my missing RC's recently. Thank you for helping me sort this particular matter out @valued-customer
Cheers
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of shadowbanning mechanism affecting upvotes from some and to others. I'd hate me if I was Steem, because I keep calling Steem on it's enabling profiteering. I realize that such a mechanism would approach fraud, and claiming that it was happening with extant evidence - and lack of evidence - would be ad hominem. I point out I didn't make that accusation, only expressed that I would not be surprised if it was happening. After all, I've been flagged by Stinc devs before, so there is some history there.
Let's hope that's not why.
Thanks for your support =) It's very encouraging, even if not fattening my wallet. I don't care much about my wallet anyway, but appreciate very much engagement and moral support.
Yes I do very much appreciate your presence out here. As well as your ability to articulate your thoughts in a logical and understanding way. I quite enjoy your posts, as well as your writing. Your feelings are well reciprocated my friend.
=)
I upvoted the post to see if the reward would go up. My vote had no effect at all. Very strange indeed. I resteemed your post concerning this in the hopes of finding out the reason. Although I think I already know why. If what I think is happening is indeed happening, then I am in shock that our stake that we bought can not have its intended effect when used for an upvote that we choose to give. To manipulate peoples ability to have their account function accordingly, especially when it effects the financial system set in place. That should be fully trusted. Imagine if your bank fee is 25.00 a month. And you know you have 50,000 in savings. Then you go to pay for your coffee and your account tells you insufficient funds, merely because the bank manager does not like your political beliefs, eye color, MAGA hat that you wore into the bank last, etc. even though you actually have enough in your account to purchase the coffee. At any rate I am sure you get my point.
This is very bad business for sure. Also I will go as far to say even if this was unintentional, which I feel it most likely was intentional.. it is their duty to ensure the financial side of the platform can be fully trusted. Otherwise what does that say to potential investors, as well as current stake holders.