Good analysis, but you were quite vague in your interpretation.
My 2c: The voting behavior is like a prisoners dilemma, isn´t it? To maximize profits, people tend to vote always the same authors and spread is minimized, but to support long-term the community requires a change. But the longterm benefits do cost some short-term profit. That makes it so hard to change.
What?
How do you get to this?
With Leo's flat reward's algorithm, there is literally no differences if I vote early or late, always the same or always different authors.
I always get my 50% back, which exclusively depends only from the size my stake?
(unless one truly wants to get involved into circle-jerking)
Am I wrong in this? If so, would you be so kind to elaborate?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You are right, in Leofinance there is a flat curve, but can it be that voting behavior still reflects partly the "old style"? Maybe also, because the Hive rewards of the upvotes are still penalized for small-reward posts? I am just searching for an explanation that always the same authors gets such a large stake of the rewards. I have the impression that some of them can write anything repetitive or random stuff and still get more votes than 90% of all others.
E.g. I stopped writing finance-specific topics after e.g. this and this were largely ignored.