Posts with liquified rewards excluded from voting

in Curangellast year

With the newest iteration of the neverending tale "Services That Solely Exist To Get A Share Of The Reward Pool", the curangel upvote code was updated to prevent upvotes on posts that set a liquifying service as beneficiary.

While the existence of likwid has been unfortunate already, its use has been so small that having an own check for it didn't occur necessary. As "improved" on the concept by combining it with a vote buying mechanism, @curangel will step up early and work against these kind of schemes becoming the new normal.


lol at the picture, but i feel like what you are talking about is both important and way over my head haha

I totally agree with what you say. Do what is best for us and for all of us.

Does that mean that every post is excluded? :) Because every post gives curation reward to the voter which looks like vote buying according to your definition.

Also two questions:

  1. What is wrong in liquid payouts?
  2. Do you take cut from curation rewards or all is distributed to delegators?

Don't get me wrong, you can of course run your service as you wish but I don't get the accusations.

You're not really that stupid that I would have to explain that to you, are you? But there you go...

Height and distribution of curation rewards are decided on by consensus, the same consensus that decides them to be paid out in vested form. You are acting as a middle man and using capital to override consensus for a fee. And by offering higher curation rewards, you're giving users who pay you an edge in the struggle for upvotes.

If you want to know how curangel works, look it up yourself.

You're not really that stupid

OK, it's pointless. Best of luck.

My total support to your decision!
I have enough of such stuff

Gamification of the Hive ecosystem is a natural thing. And it’s not at all obvious that setting either @curangel or as a beneficiary is inherently bad for the ecosystem.

And it's now part of the ruleset of the game that there's no curangel upvotes for posts using services that override the reward distribution consensus. No matter if that's good or bad.

I think @qurator will follow this method as well. Not a fan of the system, especially if there is a fee involved.

Ah so that's what the is about. I've heard a tiny bit about it but didn't really know what it was about. I have to look up a post that explains it but that does seem a little sketchy.

Yay! Cool to see y'all taking a stand on this!!

every day on hive is groundhog day...

A step in the right direction.

The terms used here are the first time I've heard of any of this, and I'm trying to fully understand Hive. I used Steemit for a good while without really understanding it. Is there a resource you can recommend that explains everything or should I just dive into the Whitepaper?

Services That Solely Exist To Get A Share Of The Reward Pool

Like ... @curangel ?

I find out that exists, well every time you learn something new in Hive