Can we get reports on the biggest, tightest circlejerks?
Positive voting is a much bigger issue than downvoting, excepting the nuking for 'reasons'.
I'm guessing upvote circles take much more than 4% of the pool each day.
This report and this report were very useful to me.
I'd also like to see just how much the top few accounts actually take out because of the impact of voting more than 1000mv.
Thanks for duking it out, the crab bucket needs you.
Hehe, yes, I will look at upvotes too in the near future. That's high on the list of priorities. Thanks for the links, I remember those reports, yes - there isn't anyone doing what paulag used to do - I'll bare that in mind :)
Could you also add or display how rewards are separated by beneficiary? A community account for curation may set beneficiaries for the posts they created which current tools only register as if the account receiving the votes are the sole recipient even if rewards are distributed to more accounts on a single post.
Account X could get a lot of votes but rewards are split between multiple accounts as beneficiaries and this may lead to false impressions for people not looking into that minor detail.
What would be the aim of creating a report like that?
If I have a curation account that I self vote on, not trying to break it down to rewards received by set beneficiaries on the post is misleading. If some large community curation accounts vote on their own posts, the rewards don't go toward the curation accounts (depending on proportion set) they go to the curators that made up the curation compilation or whoever put in the work to make it happen as an incentive.
Accounts like ocdb votes on itself, but most overlook that the beneficiaries of those reward don't even go back to ocdb but to the curators that put in the work. And this goes for all curation accounts that set their curators as beneficiaries.
Ah I see, ok - I hadn't noticed that they were setting beneficiaries in that way. I'll bare that in mind when I get to making reports that are relevant.
The funny thing about this is that OCDB also goes and intentionally downvotes other communities and curation groups, that also beneficiary out their rewards... Without any justification or explanation.
I think they recently downvoted their own post too? but that happens rarely as well. And they also didn't provide any reason why they downvoted their own post.
one day we will find ways to use upvote bots and Ai to analyze posts and find which users are actually bringing in the most new users, which content creates the most new better content, meta curation etc, metadata curation
This doesn't require AI, just time/resources invested to create the code to produce the data. I can do it myself but not when I have near zero rewards from Hive. I put about 2 weeks of nearly solid coding in to create HiveAlive and that was using the framework of the old site (SteemOcean) too, which saved time. New reports will take less time to create, but still costs me time and money that I can't get back from Hive currently - despite having significant community support for 5 years!
Make that proposal.
Maybe that's worth a go, yeah - coudn't hurt!
Bring on the bots!
Especially in manufacturing.
Bring on the FALC!
The 1000 MV thing doesn't apply any more. Rewards are linear.
I understand without the exponential boost to vests that the small fry won't see a boost to our rewards on the scale of the whale experiment, but our slice of the pie will still be made larger.
1000mv makes a still difficult hill to climb less steep.
500,488hp is a more attractive goal than to have to buy millions to compete equally in the pool.
Adhering to this limit might attract folks more modest in their means as the goal is more realistically attained.
As things are, how many people do you think can afford to get into the top 35 accounts?
I bet there are more that will be willing to risk 1000mv than 10k mv.
I haven't found somebody to give me the rake of those top 35, but the more the price rises the less likely that any of them will be unseated.
Anybody with 900k usd to invest would be irresponsible to not know this number, imo.
I do know the whale share is getting larger, the whales are not getting diluted by the inflation.
Maybe what they take from the pool is irrelevant, but somehow I doubt selling their votes wholesale, ie delegating for profit, that their rake from the pool is inconsequential.
They wouldn't bother if the return wasn't worth the time.
So, yes, I do support a whale class with the self discipline to leave some more for others.
It's a feature, not a bug.
To clarify, Smooth is saying that there is no 1000mv factor in the rewards algorithm on Hive.
Yes, I'm asking that the whales observe a 1000mv voting limit, much like the whale experiment, except voluntary.
You can pull numbers, how much do those with more than 1000mv pull from the pool each day?