xproject - Bringing balance to the trail game

in Splinterlands4 months ago (edited)



We believe that for every action there should be an opposite reaction for a truly fair game.

Indiscriminate voting (automatic upvoting) is a very common practise however, it's reverse action is non existent.

What is xproject?

This project does provide a marker for trails, but the downvote is negligible. In other words, we are providing means for downvote trails. It is ultimately up to the individual to follow a downvote trail.

Xproject is a very simple bot that monitors @justarandomname and make a @xjustarandomname react with an the opposite voting behavior.

The weight of these downvotes is insignificant and should not affect payouts.


If you don't use your 25% downvotes you lose it.

@xaccounts make it easy to oppose the voting behavior of another account by setting up a trail on Hive.vote that replicate the downvotes of an @xaccount.

This post show the list of tracked account and their corresponding @X
If you would like us to add an account pay lightproject 10$ in setup fees and make sure to delegate HP to make up for the RC required for the amount of votes.

Under the hood

This project is open source, written in nodejs, the public repository can be found here: https://github.com/AusPrinzip/depreciator-hive

Basically, the app is listening to the HIVE blockchain stream and targets any of the top 25 effective HP accounts with a downvote. The downvote is at a reverse 1:1 rate of the upvote.

List of tracked accounts

  1. appreciator
  2. ocdb
  3. blocktrades
  4. smooth
  5. alpha
  6. steemmonsters
  7. rocky1
  8. theycallmedan
  9. blocktrades.com
  10. mottler
  11. leo.voter
  12. buildawhale
  13. curangel
  14. newsflash
  15. bdvoter
  16. xeldal
  17. liketu
  18. ranchorelaxo
  19. threespeak
  20. trafalgar
  21. altleft
  22. eccency
  23. themarkymark
  24. tipu
  25. steempty

This project sounds dangerous to those who have built for years on Hive yet cannot fight back against being bullied by downvotes simply cause they get many extra little .001 upvotes from old STEEM accounts.

If you want to develop something that truly helps Hive lets talk

If you want to develop something that truly helps Hive lets talk

You clearly don't know transisto.

Very true, I have no clue who I was talking to

Depreciator Github! The kraken has been released!

I don't think it has much to do with some projects like @tipu, honestly this is a project done by curators and I don't understand why I who receive a treatment must be downvoted AHAh, no sens, but if you like this thing I don't discuss it, I just hope you don't take away rewards but I have just lost some ...

Welcome to the crowd, I'll be interested in seeing how many people care enough to stand up even this much.
The crab bucket just got crabbier.

Maybe a lot of people care enough to not participate. :)

This is the likely scenario.
But, if normalizing flags is the goal, this does a good job of it.

Why would blind flags be normalizing? It's targeted and punitive. Some of what those accounts upvote or downvote are likely great choices, some are likely not. Blindly following a trial is simply not curation it's a stake war and harmful.

When people stop treating downvotes as their almighty power against those smaller and name calling and being ridiculous when giving them. Those who receive them will become less defensive.

Why would blind flags be normalizing?

Not blind, biggest curation accounts.

It's targeted and punitive.


When people stop treating downvotes as their almighty power against those smaller and name calling and being ridiculous when giving them.

Read that again in the context of 'biggest curation accounts'.

What is offered here is a way for nontechies to counter the people taking the most out of the pool.
It is a classic crab bucket move.
Nothing wrong with that, imo.
I hope it persists.

Somehow I doubt the initiative gets much support, though, despite the noble sentiments.

Votes can be adjusted, maybe rather look at how many unique accounts and votes "biggest curation accounts" cast instead of just looking at their size. I know curangel votes on 10x more unique authors than another account of a similar size for instance, doesn't mean people should just blindly auto-downvote them both cause that doesn't change anything. Careful downvote curation could push certain curation accounts to try harder/do better, if they care about the APR that is.

The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.
Selling what is going on in the curation gangs as 'helping the little guy' is delusional, imo.
You do understand how the math works, yes?
When whales vote redfish get pushed below the dust cutoff of the long tail.
Negating those rshares serves far more people than allowing them to payout can claim.
Two accounts vs all but two.

Until the coins spread out by a factor of 100, 5000 accounts needed to control rather than 50, we are subject to more than just money attacks.
This also discourages investment.
The age of oligarchies is coming to an end.

The named accounts do more for the little fish by not voting.

Sounds like you're the one that's delusional.

lol, so noble. :)

I agree with the comment below this, if anything we should keep downvotes manual but use them more often to normalize rather than some random trails.

Perhaps, I am totally fine with manual downvotes than automated downvotes but let us see if the community will like this project or not. Cheers