Nesting limit, so I will revive here...
It sucks we're running into the comment depth limit here but the concept of draining the reward pool is a bad one that leads to confusion.
Yes, this idea of "draining" because some people earn more rewards than others - without any actual abuses occurring - is absurd. It is not "draining" - it is allocation by stakeholders.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who still do not understand the stake-holding aspect of the platform and how that stake is weighted when it comes to voting and rewards allocation. Even more unfortunate is that there are long-standing members who still do not comprehend this and actually perpetuate the ignorance of it among new users who then become disenchanted, complain about it without understanding, and ultimately leave in frustration.
I think the frustration stems from the slogan "everybody gets paid to post". Really? "Everybody?" The slogan starts a expectation. I have been getting dimes here and there but when I started out I would get posts that earned nothing.
It's no reason to quit a day job for. Unfortunately someone did that.
Agree. You don't get paid to post tou get paid to invest time and energy into a long term involvement in creating content. Many 1 cent posts have turned more valuable the longer I stayed in and got more followers and upvotes especially from high reputation users. It will pay but only if you are putting out something someone else wants to hear and values hearing.
Is it really that Charlie doesn't know what he's talking about? So if a popular author writes an article and gets many votes and a significant payout, it has no impact on any other author publishing at that time?
I wasn't referring to Charlie.
Sure, it has an impact. But what does "having an impact" mean?
It means money. What did you take it to mean when you agreed it has an impact?
He's an expert at red herrings. Ask him a question and he'll respond with a question. Give him an answer and he won't hear it.
What @ats-david knows but fails to realise is that coins that are distributed widely have more value than coins that are hoarded by the few.
When users vote on posts that have already got high pending payouts, their vote weighs more. So a dolphin that might give 1c to a low payout post might also give 20c to a higher pending payout post. That means that the 20c does get pulled from the lower payout posts.
This is not a bad system IMO. I think it could work if people were better educated and there were better incentives to avoid pile-ons on over-valued posts.
So you have a problem with how rewards are allocated? See my initial comment.
Perhaps I should have asked: What is the problem with this "impact?" Is that not how the system was designed? A fixed rewards pool that is allocated based on stake-weighted voting?