We have implemented dynamic voting power for our trail member upvotes. What this means for you is that when a bid is received that is above the average of the last 1000 bids you will get a dynamic upvote from our trail members. This means that the power of those votes will automatically adjust by comparing your bid to the highest bid out of the last 1000.
Example
Let’s say that the highest bid out of the last 1000 was 0.4 SBD and the average bid was 0.05 SBD. If you bid 0.4 SBD you will get 100% upvotes from our trail members. If you bid 0.2 SBD you would get 50% upvotes, and if you bid 0.1 SBD you would get 25% upvotes etc.
This was a feature requested to be implemented by our users and we will monitor its success in the near future.
As always, additional upvotes from our trail members are not guaranteed as we limit their voting power from dropping below 75%. In times of high demand you may see trail votes become sporadic. Thank you and happy bidding!
I hoped for something else:
Frontrunners for above average only was fair, but using the maximum as the numerator is bad.
The maximum tends to be an outlying erroneous send as you know, and affects the average already as you know.
The best way to use the frontrunners would be to close every round at around 99.7% VP, consider every bid past it as a bid of the next round, and then activate the frontrunners proportionally to the bid's proportion.
Otherwise, bids that do not reach the frontrunners' threshold hurt both their bidders and the frontrunners themselves whom frontrun an aggregate of bids that may receive less than 100% of the round's VP in total.
I even feel like the policy before this change was better than after it.
You got a 26 or 28 SBD bid once, so will you virtually retire your frontrunners until the day when you become a whale sized bot?
You should automatically refund bids which are obviously losing, which some bots already do and at least one does even more, like close a round when the total bid reaches a certain amount.
I can look into reverting to the old method or setting a max vote that is refunded. I know there is a feature that delays bids until the next round if a large (>75%) bid comes in, but this also basically doubles the amount of bidders in the next round. I think most people understand the bots voting power and if they don’t they should bid the minimum bid to test it out for the first time.
I’m a little confused as to the method you described. The hope is that the average bid and the proportional bid will continue to balance the Frontrunners Voting Power so it doesn’t reach the recharge threshold. I will monitor it and see if the previous way was a better approach. I can change it back if that is the case.
I wrote it because I thought you meant "average" when you wrote "average".
As it is, aggregate ROI decreased at least for the short term, but is not nearly as bad as what would have happened if you used the average like you wrote.
There is another thing that bothers me for a while:
steemcondenser.
It does not redeem its reward, which is usually 0, and rarely 0.001 Steem and never more and it votes at less than 100% out of already less than 100% of its already less than pathetic VP, and just spams the blockchain and increases the chance of preventing far more valuable frontrunners from occupying the first places in a vote and maximizing their curation rewards (expectancy).
And then, its reputation is negative, and it does not even increase the votee's reputation by the most minimal amount.
steemcondenser should be retired, its SP should be powered down to 0, and using a temporary delegation moved to another account, for the good of all.
When I see the first 5 votes done by accounts which will not make more than 0.001 in curation rewards, and probably 0, I struggle to find a reason to buy another vote which will come after you.
Another issue that is already solved in some bidbots, is equality between chronological order of bid and chronological order of vote.
Your bot has a tendency to favor last moment bidders, exactly opposed to how it should act.
I will look at steemcondenser and retire it if needed. I’m not sure what you mean by equality of the bid and vote? All bot votes go out within a couple minutes of each other, the sequence doesn’t matter. All Frontrunners votes go out in the order the bid comes in. The only caveat is that the bot will wait until the post is at least 17mins old to vote with Frontrunners as this maximizes their curation.
What I meant is that the chronological order of votes should be the chronological order of bids.
Since you mentioned maximizing their curation, think about what happens when a bidder places a bid immediately before the cycle closes (when your VP is at almost 100%), and then your supposedly randomized ordering favors the last moment bidder over an early bidder (this is the order of votes which I complained about, another complaint was about steemcondenser's participation) .
One of many problems with steemcondenser's participation which I already enumerated in my previous reply is the earlier a frontrunner votes the more it enjoys the later votes, and steemcondenser happens to occupy the first places too often, and yes I know it is random-like.
I also mentioned other problems caused by using it.
This comment has received a 90.91 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!
Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!
Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP
You got a 100.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.
If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.
This comment has received a 38.46 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!
Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!
Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP
You got a 100.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.
If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.
This comment has received a 47.62 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!
Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!
Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP
Right now I am still waiting for a post to be voted.
The post is:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@bbilgin/how-to-solve-the-reward-pool-abuse-problem-once-and-for-all#@stimialiti/re-bbilgin-how-to-solve-the-reward-pool-abuse-problem-once-and-for-all-20180308t180152552z
you had a 100% before I sent 0,1, then I got the frontrunners, later, a spammer sent 0.1 (or was it 0.106?) so I hope not to share the vote with him, or to get a refund.
You got a 100.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.
If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.
This comment has received a 66.67 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!
Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!
Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP
You got a 6.75% upvote from @adriatik courtesy of @stimialiti!
You got a 100.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.
If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.
This is good @steemdiffuser