I'm a caveman who never really understood the system well enough to optimize or exploit it. For us laymen, would you say these changes are good, bad, or meh?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm a caveman who never really understood the system well enough to optimize or exploit it. For us laymen, would you say these changes are good, bad, or meh?
It's a mixed bag. The change to voting power is very good, the penalty for voting in the first fifteen minutes is pretty bad, the new account creation is completely unpredictable, and everything else is pretty meh.
Got it. That's one 'very good', one 'pretty bad', a 'completely unpredictable' and one 'pretty meh.'
Thanks, @tcpolymath! 8-)
Why do you thing this is bad?
Because people should be able to vote naively on things that they like, and reward them just as much as if they were sophisticated. Every change like this makes "proof-of-brain" less about evaluating the value of posts and more about understanding the innards of the voting system.
For instance, people who know to wait fifteen minutes before voting good comments made on their posts will now advance faster than those who don't. That's pretty much purely stupid.
But this was introduced in order to equalize the chances between bots and manual curators. Otherwise, the bots would vote immediately, taking most of the curation rewards.
If someone finds a valuable post, it is usually more profitable (in terms of curation rewards) to vote much earlier (even in the 5th minute) than to wait until 30. The key is that the formula for the curation rewards takes into account also the sum of rshares before your vote so if it is low enough, you gain more from being before others than lose from voting before 30 minutes.
I pasted the link to my last post here: http://steemer.pl/curation/post-curation.html
And this is the result:
The best performance was achieved by the person who voted in 4th minute! :)