You state,
If you think about it, those rewards that get returned from downvotes are distributed equally with everyone else. The blockchain doesn't keep track of who downvoted what and give the downvoter the rewards it returns to the pool, in that case you may start to wonder if the motives are that but considering how much active stake there is in total (I think about 200m HP) it makes little sense for me as a 340k HP account to go out and downvote ~4 posts per day or however much my downvote mana would afford just so those $20 in rewards were to be redistributed to literally all other accounts receiving curation rewards.
This is not true. The rewards go back into the pool where the larger stakes get the highest percentage of it. It is NOT split equally.
The rewards just get distributed to other posts. It doesn't go to larger stakes or smaller stakes. Your stake doesn't have much to do with the author rewards on your posts unless you're a huge stakeholder voting your own posts.
That's a much better answer than I was thinking of, sure 50% of the downvoted/returned to pool rewards go to curators but half go to all other authors who often times aren't big stakeholders. Unless you mean downvoted post rewards go only towards post rewards and none to curators which would be news to me
Something this person also seems to ignore is that it's mostly larger stakeholders who are mostly affected by the downvotes in terms of Hive amount so his point never really made a lot of sense IMO.
OMG, the rewards pool is distributed by stake being used to curate, so yes it does go to the larger stakes. You should know better. Author rewards are determined by the individual stakes of both the curator and the author. On top of that, we aren't just talking about Author rewards, because rewards are split, so there's curation rewards as well, where the higher stakes have the highest vote value and by default earn a higher return from the rewards pool. Try again!
Why would I mean it that way? Why would they get split based on amount of accounts holding HP rather than split equally based on HP?
That would just encourage people to create more accounts like your friend trying to milk rewards you were crying about the other day.
Whatever you meant, what you actually typed is wrong.
No it's not, only dumbasses would assume it was meant in the way that it would be distributed in an equal amount with tens of thousands of accounts rather than based on HP since everything else works based on HP on a proof of stake blockchain. Go be annoying somewhere else.
Lmao, so you are the type who needs the win over being correct. Gotcha
Not really, I have no problem with people calling out any mistakes and I welcome them to do so and often admit I'm not 100% sure on certain things but given your recent history it seems like you're just trying to nitpick random stuff most people wouldn't misunderstand just to be annoying.
If you are trying to clarify something, it helps to be clear. You are not being clear here and I think you are just butthurt from our recent history, but I'm not. I wipe the slate clean between every disagreement.
If I were nitpicking, I'd have mentioned the few other type-o's and misspellings within the post as well.
I'm not convinced.