Does any post deserve to receive more than $100 rewards?
Because I see quite a lot of posts that receive more than that in the past week.
Because a lot of votes are auto votes some authors always get really high rewards.
And not all of them are downvoted.
I think it would be fair if there was a max reward for posts. But I don't know if that is possible.
It would be even better that there would be a max upvote for automated votes. Manual curation would make the distribution of rewards more fair I think.
But I don't know if this is technically possible (or even desirable).
It's just my 2 cents. I'm don't want to deny anyone it's rewards 😊
Manual doesn’t beat automated. There’s lots of people who do both and it wouldn’t be different to have a cap. I have limited time in my day so I don’t have time to curate so I follow vote trails to make it easier and use a couple manual votes to make sure I don’t get to 100% voting power.
As well a cap on rewards is a bad idea as well because you don’t know who’s doing what with the payout you receive. Some people it could feed their family for a week if they had a great post, some will gamble it away and others will reinvest in hive. Who are we to say what the max pay out is when there’s so many things to consider? I sure as hell know that’s a recipe for disaster.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
It is an arbitrary number. I just use it as a basic screen. Yes there are many posts which gets more than that. In 90% of the cases they are not worth it. For example this one.
However, unfortunately we don't have enough DV power to deal will all disagreement on rewards. Edicted here posts 1 post/day and they all get rewarded heavily regardless of content. If an author get 1 post that randomly gets $100 in a week, I will have no issue with that. Again, this is my personal opinion and it is NOT a popular opinion. The main reason is, people, even experienced and long term authors, fail to grasp the concept that 'projected' earning are NOT yours until 7th day at payout. So there is no question of 'loss'. 99% of hivers DO NOT earn as much as edicted does. Is it fair to question that? Is is fair for edicted to give some out for the community? Do something for others?
Are these valid question? Or is it better to vote up a post about DV to $200? Let community and you, the friendly moose, be the judge of that :)
But... who cares? There's a pretty lop-sided reward pool for any of the longer-time big-name users.
Dude tosses out 100% weight votes to smaller users regularly, and has always been supportive and returns comments in any interaction I've ever had with him.
It's not his fault he gets a lot of auto-votes, that's not something he can control, and honestly? Self-voting for the like 4$ feels like a non-issue to me. There's tons of big accounts that self-vote all the time and nobody says shit to them.
Do I think more folks should get better rewards? Shit yeah! I would love to see more folks getting 30-40$ posts than a lot of concentrated 100+ posts to a minor set of users, but, end of the day @edicted supports Hive and Hivians and it feels janky as fuck to mass downvote him for being recognized and rewarded with how much he comments and posts (generally) fairly high-quality content.
After all, isn't that the whole goal?
We punish success and wonder why folks don't adopt lol wtf are you whales thinking.
I have a long discussion with edicted, publicly, right here on this post. I am quite certain he doesn't agree with you.
Consider the fact. Please try to use the word 'fuck' in moderation. Its just polite.
Fair enough, I didn't read the entire thread as it's a ton of comments. If there's been an understanding made already then I'm sorry for reviving an already ended argument.