Very useful post! I hate to be nit-picky, but the analogy about the startup (curation rewards) isn't really a good one.
One analogy might be a startup company seeking funding. The company may receive funding from various sources, but ultimately if one funding source contributes $10 million right after hearing the proposal from the startup, and another contributes $1 million a few weeks later, the $10 million contributor will receive a larger stake in the company because of the larger investment that occurred earlier in the company's timeline.
The 10 million investment would have the larger stake anyway as it had invested more. I know what you are meaning to say, but I'm not sure you should use different amounts!
Hey @bengy, thanks for the feedback.
What's humorous is that I originally didn't include the line about the $10 million being first. Then as I got further into the post, I realized the analogy wasn't as strong because there's a time aspect to the Steemit voting curve. Anyhow, I think you're right in that it makes more sense to leave out the timing aspect for the analogy.
It's complicated since larger votes always get larger curation rewards, but smaller votes can get marginally better rewards by voting before larger votes. There isn't really an analogy that helps explain that. If you can think of something better, please let me know!
I suppose I was worried someone would comment the opposite of what you're saying now, and say that the analogy wasn't good because it didn't include a time aspect. haha
I'll see what I can do about changing it to better serve the topic of the post, but in all sincerity, thank you for the feedback. It's always helpful to get things like this pointed out so as to not confuse new users.
I think it would make more sense if the amounts were equal. Then the time thing makes sense, also the analogy will as well. If they are different, then there is a point of intersection where they cross over.
Although, as you wrote it, the 10 invested earlier will always best the 1 later?