Ah. Thank you for clarifying that.
To dive deeper then...
If we say (just for me to understand) that the top 100 posts have a 80% of the rewards that have been voted out at that time, those 100 posts would also get 80% of the rewards removed from the down-voted post?
Feel free to shoot me a link or tell me to go find it if this is already laid out very clearly somewhere.
It doesn't change the distribution of other rewards, it mostly just increases all of them by a certain percentage. So if the top 100 got 80% before, the top 100 would get 80% after. Both top 100 and outside the top 100 would increase by X% (X% is very small for any single downvote of course, let's say 0.01% hypothetically).
You could have just said yes.
The correct answer is more subtle. If you're downvoting a post in the top 100 (almost always what I downvote since I don't spend a lot of time looking for downvote candidates), you are actually reducing the share of reward going to the top 100.
What is the argument against burning flagged rewards thereby benefiting all stakeholders equally rather than the current distribution giving them to the highest value posts in proportion to the rshares voted to them?
If there are 3 posts with 100, 50, and 10 htu respectively and 1000htu flagged to split among them doesn't the 100htu post get double what the 50htu and 10x what the 10htu post get?
If true, better to burn the rewards, imo.
I don't think it's that bad but burning and shifting away from one payout are two different things and voters ought to be able to do both. If voters think more should be burned overall (that is, that the overall collection of posts is not deserving of payouts, as opposed to particular ones), they can vote for burn.funder posts the way we can vote for hbd.funder (burnpost used to do this). In your example, if you think the 100 is getting too much, either before or after the 1000 is downvoted, then go ahead and downvote that one too!
That said, I don't think burning is terrible.
That's true, and less emotionally triggering, voting burn.funder would serve the same ends.
I propose the change to the curation math should be made in pursuit of a more horizontal distribution of the rewards, the top posts are getting enough, imo.
My reading of arcange's posts says that the largest accounts are maintaining their share of the inflation as a percentage of the whole, thereby not reducing the centralization caused by early adoption and brownnosing of the ninjaminers by milquetoast authors.
I think burning flagged rewards presents a better proposal for the newbs, too.
Rather than allow characterizing the flaggots as enriching themselves, it ends any thoughts in that line and increases the scarcity of all coins, equally.
Maybe it gets folks to flag more stuff by demonstrating the benefits to all, rather than the few at the top.
The crab bucket is failing the trending page, and the distribution, imo.
At some point the rubicon is crossed, future inflation won't be enough to unseat the oligarchy created by the designed control features that favor the top earners, has that point been reached, already?
Like I said, I don't hate it but I prefer the way it works now. When we downvote overpaid stuff in the top 100 (which is nearly if not 100% of what I downvote, and I suspect a large portion of total downotes), it is increasing the rewards all the way down the line, even comments.
@smooth, you’ve recently downvoted a post of mine for a total of $80. I am full-time on Hive and spend so much time curating and commenting that I often find little time to post.
As Hive is my life, I’d appreciate it if you at least take the time to comment and provide a reason why when downvoting, otherwise it feels like a personal attack, and more so I’d just lazy.
If you care about Hive so much, take some time to engage with the posts you upvote and downvote, otherwise you see like an out of touch elite too good to interact with this beneath you.
I am downvoting this comment because you have downvoted my content without reason or even taking time to engage. Take some time and please understand that people in poverty live a different life than you.
Why does it matter if a post is one of the top 100, or in position 101?
That's an arbitrary number, but if you're concerned with rewards being distributed more broadly, I'm pretty sure downvotes are helpful not harmful in practice. The higher payouts get downvoted more. The rewards flow to the other payouts, including the smaller ones.
I wondered if I had missed something regarding the top 100 posts.
While generally what you are saying regarding posts and payouts is true, the devil's in the details, as always, and there are good reasons and bad ones to vote rewards to and from posts and authors.
I reckon any reasons stemming from differences of opinion, rather than substantial effort and contribution to societal improvement, and that generally and not only regarding Hive itself, are the bad ones. We only support free speech if we support the speech of folks we disagree with, as even the most repressive censor supports the speech of folks they agree with.
I am confident you grasp that fact, and I have always recommended that our votes promote free speech long before financial matters are considered at all. Without the former the latter has no value whatsoever. It is apparent on Hive that our money is a form of speech.
This is becoming more and more apparent by the day, and the value of free speech rises ever higher as censorship reduces it's availability in the market. Hive could profit more from that market than almost any other platform that exists, but we will vote that profit onto the platform, or repel it with censorship.
We will likely have to agree to disagree on the relationship between inflation rewards and free speech.
I think free speech can thrive independent of inflation rewards, and these rewards can (and in my view, should) be allocated in a manner largely independently of free speech.
The fact that you can post on the platform at all, and that communities and apps can be built to cultivate visibility and utility on the platform independent of inflation rewards, including with different methods for monetization or no monetization, is sufficient for free speech to thrive.
Of course, it is up to stakeholders to decide. If people want to buy in and financially reward 'free speech content' for it's own sake without exercising further discretion on content and value, that is as legitimate as any other vote. If you don't agree with my views, then vote differently.
The Reward Pool is a somewhat static piece which gets distributed across all votes of a period of time. You can't expand or reduce it by voting habits.
Correct, by the voting habits (specifically of whales) do decide where those rewards get allocated.
For example, if they downvote a $300 post to $0 - that $300 is added back into the rewards pool, where it will mostly be awarded to the top posts at the time.
All Rewards are mostly distributed to the top post at any given time, independent from downvoting habits.
I disagree with most voting habits on-chain too, but that's a totally different story for a small fish like me. I don't even get how you ended up as a target.
Very true - and the folks downvoting have admitted many times that they agree trending is mostly over-rewarded crap.
They just claim they don't have the voting power to do anything about it - while simultaneously zero-ing out posts that were near the top of trending.
Yep, very risky for a small fish (or anyone really) to call out this activity - because it will get you downvoted (often to negative reputation), and has guaranteed no further rewards for many a user.
Because I dared to speak out against their targeting of others, because I do have a high rep and many supporters (less risk), and I honestly don't care if they try to cancel me as well.
Well, they could be honest and just outright state that the downvotes are 'mostly peaceful' subjective disagreements. That would indeed cut some corners.
I wonder where Blocktrades is on this topic at the moment.