Overrewarded likely due to automated/apathetic votes from accounts that simply vote for whatever is on trending. I can promise you didn't earn those votes via the quality of your content so don't take either the upvotes nor downvotes personally.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You can't promise shit. Your claim you have understanding of the personal, subjective assessments of quality content of folks upvoting Josh's posts is a blatant falsehood.
To address the BS you're spewing regarding how they use their stake, if you don't like folks upvoting trending posts why have you championed curation rewards? Presumably that is why folks would just autovote trending posts.
I have upvoted Josh's posts, and will again. I have only ever voted manually. Will you reduce your flag by that amount since I can prove that the claimed justification for your flag is false by at least that amount? No, you won't, because that BS has nothing to do with why you're flagging Josh.
I can promise you have no just cause to complain about my comment, so don't take it personally. I just can't abide BS and your comment is full of it.
But hey, thanks for taking the time to respond with your cover story for killing the Hive marketing department. Josh's followers won't believe it either, but that's what you want: less competition for the rewards pool you and your ilk consider your property.
You're milking your cash cow to death.
Curation rewards are fine. Downvotes are part of the mechanism, including for curation rewards. If you expend your valuable vote power pushing rewards up excessively and/or indiscriminately and downvotes then follow, your curation rewards are reduced. Higher profit comes from upvoting where there is consensus on the resulting reward, which may indeed require more effort to find content where the rewards aren't already high, as opposed to picking something more or less (or entirely) at random from "Trending" and pushing it even higher.