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?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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?