So your army fits the "whale-like-group" definition. You have the power. Wish you are voting wisely.
When no perceived whale voting is going on I don't need to down-vote, no matter whether the experiment is "running" or not.
Let's see if the system can still work without whales up-voting.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, my bot targets somewhere around 80 votes per day so that each vote is supposed to be below whale-level. They're spread around to a great deal of generally-unpopular content. I think I have one of the most socially-responsible bots out there. I suppose I could increase the number-of-votes target to spread the votes out even more.
With 80 votes per day you are only voting at half strength of a whale voting 40. Starting at 1 GV that still fits abit's definition, though not by a huge margin.
So my question is: what's most important? Keeping the strength of each vote small? Or keeping the total number of rshares^2 low? Because if the former, I'll just spread the votes out on more posts. If the latter, I'd need to let some voting power go to waste.
Aren't they the same?
If you're voting on unpopular contents, likely I won't notice them..
More posts is fine IMO (although I can't speak for abit). My downvoting bot will ignore whale votes when they only apply a small vote strength to an individual post. n^2 applies at the level of individual posts. So for example, a whale voting full power on one empty post, say for 10 "vote points", would generate a reward of 100, but voting 10% power on ten empty posts for 1 "vote point" each would generate a total reward of 10. In the former case the whale's influence is extreme and crowds out others (say those voting with 1 point maximum) from having any meaningful influence at all. In the latter cases it is not. (Unscaled hypothetical units, and not exact.)
(nesting limit)
Oh, I meant total rshares^2 in all of steem. I meant
total_reward_shares2.