Okay. So, yesterday from 12:45 pm to 1:14 pm one of the accounts that flagged me downvoted other people 178 times. I have no idea what their VP was when they started or when it ended, only that it's at 22.82% as I write this. Based on your numbers, does that sound feasible? I mean, I get that's how it works for upvotes. But it seems to me that's not happening here with downvotes. The first 2% would give you 25 100% upovtes, and the last 1% would give you 50 upvotes until all your voting power was gone, right? That's 75 upvotes according to my math. What's more, they did similarly for five straight days, so there's no way they were at 100% voting power during that period of time, so they've been flagging way below 100% over that period.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sounds totally plausible. You can't actually get to 0% VP. Even if you were at 0.01% VP, if you voted again, it would only take 2% of that, so you'd probably have your VP recharging faster than you could use it at that point. They can just keep bouncing off the bottom and they'll recharge 20% (of 100, not if their current power level) every day. So if they got down to 4 or 5%, they would be back up to around 22% VP right now.
Remember, each vote (or flag) is based off the current VP. So if you cast a 50% power vote while you're at 50% VP, you'll only lose 0.5% of your total VP. At that level, you can cast 40 of those votes per day. That's assuming that you wait until the VP recharges to 50%. If you just cast them all at once, you could cast even more because the VP won't have recharged yet, so it will be based on the lower VP.
Okay, well, they haven't been throwing anything but 100% downvotes at anyone. But you're saying they could go on basically forever this way each day if they wanted to and never run out of VP. I mean, it's not going to affect anyone because they have $0.00 to start out with, apparently, but I guess when you have 0, there's nothing to lose, so you keep flagging.
Especially if they can manage to recuperate faster than they spend. What kind of infernal inversion is that?
Yes, they'll never run out of VP. It's mathematically impossible. Just like it's mathematically impossible for an offense to score a touchdown by the defense committing and offsides penalty. Or for a defense to score a safety by the offense committing a false start. It can't happen.
On the bright side, if it's at the point where it's below 5% VP, the account cant' do much damage. There aren't many accounts that can.
Everyone recovers 20% per day.
If they're casting votes with 0.69VP or less, they should be recharging faster than they'll spend.... if my math is correct. That's very little VP, so it wouldn't have much effect.
Well, it's not having any effect at any stage of the process as far as any of them are concerned, which I'm chalking up to a good thing, just royally annoying. I can also see why there's been some big time flaggers calling for a reward pool for downvotes. If they can just keep at it all they want, then who needs to curate. Just go to the trending page and fire away. Whatever.
Thank you for your explanations. I get how it works now. I know it's all pretty small at the lower voting power and percentages. I see it at work every day. People dropping. $0.001. That part doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when it comes form higher SP. They can't possibly be expecting to see anything back in curation, can they?
The votes that go out that are 0.001 are probably from a curation trail. It helps get votes out and attention to things so hopefully it gets the author more exposure. I don't know if it actually works, but I think that's the idea. I don't know how much curation it gets. I'm definintely not the guy to ask. I get terrible curation. I think I saw somewhere that I got an award for "Worst Curator on Steemit" or something like that. I upvote too many of my friends at 0 minutes so they get extra rewards for their posts. It sucks for the other curators, but that's how I want to play the game. I'd rather reward my friends.
I'd rather not have to worry when I vote. I'd rather the rewards go where they're supposed to go without me waiting around to calculate the exact second it's going to give everyone the most benefit. So, I'm definitely not the guy to ask about any of this at all, which is why I'm glad that there are some people who actually do know something about it and help me understand it so I can still be turned off by it, just for a different reason that actually has knowledge behind it.
I think I saw that award of yours. It was the "Worst Curator On Purpose" award. I got the "Worst Curator Period" award.
Ha ha ha, that's ok. Steemit hasn't been about curation rewards for quite some time. So I don't even worry about it. I'm with you in that I think that if someone wants to vote on a post, they should do it and it should count. In fact, I think people should be able to set where they want their curation to go. I would just set mine to give it all to the author (that's why I'm voting after all, not to get rewards back) and leave it. Oh well. There would be too much abuse from that. And people all have their alt accounts, so they can just self-reward using those accounts. There's always a way around the system.