I feel obligated to point out that the vast majority of Steemers are minnows. We only get to make 10 votes a day before we deplete our VP so much that it won't recharge the next day.
This dramatically limits our ability to upvote posts. It isn't 'leeching' intentionally, if they read and even enjoy your post, but simply need to conserve their VP so that it will recharge.
As, unfortunately, I am. I assure you, I am far more offended by the fact that I cannot simply vote for what I like than you are by my not tossing you an upvote.
Before I read the white paper and learned about VP recharging, I cast about ~130 votes/day. I'd do that today, if I had the VP curve that would let me.
Well gee, you ARE a valued customer. :)
One suggestion: minnows was an early term, that is now taboo. It's small fry or small fish eaten by dolphins and whales.
New users should never be considered a minnow. They are simply steemians. Try to avoid the term minnow. We're trying to not say it anymore even if it is prevalent everywhere.
130 votes/day is too much
13 votes/day until you build up your SP is plenty.
I strongly disagree (BTW, it is actually 10 votes/day. Your 13 votes is 30% more than I get to cast daily. 3 votes is 30% of my daily allowance.). Being limited to ~10 votes/day is being limited to interacting with but a fraction of the people I desire to interact with. This strongly inhibits my ability to grow my SP by developing reciprocal relationships with creators of content I find valuable, and who might find mine valuable. Reciprocity is a strong social motivator, and a robust mechanism driving the value of social networks.
Being limited to ~10 votes/day also contributes heavily to selfvoting, particularly for new accounts that have visibility limitations due to not having established an audience, and lacking understanding that using their votes to gain visibility is far more beneficial than trying to selfvote themselves more SP. HF19 decreased the votes available to the poor by 400%, while during the time HF19 was being developed, the number of posts increased by 1000%.
This is a vote desert for new accounts, and much of the desperation evidenced by those new accounts for follows and upvotes is a direct result of the 4000% fewer votes available per post (for accounts without a slider - the vast majority of accounts), as is the pandering to whales, and casting of votes on trending posts by authors that consistently trend, as curation rewards are substantial if one can get in on such a post early.
Why do you think that ~100 votes a day is too much? YOU have ~100 votes/day. Do you feel oversupplied? Do you feel that having those votes makes you a danger to the platform or blockchain? Do you feel that people without sufficient funds shouldn't be able to interact with others? I fail to see any superable rationale for the idea that ~100 votes/day is excessive.
Consider @liberosist's proposed VP decay curve, where the first ~100 votes/day are essentially at 100%, after which VP decays rapidly to zero. Even avid Steemers (that post and comment substantially, rather than merely vote/insubstantively comment) will find ~100 votes a reasonable supply of interaction, while bots, which currently have an unlimited number of votes they can cast, in the extant VP decay scheme, that deliver some rewards, would be limited to the same number. Since, IIRC, VP decay was intended to decrease the profitability of botnets, @liberosist's proposal seems an improvement over the extant scheme.
I really want to hear some good reason why I, and other Krill (as you disavow the term Minnow. @dan's flagging of @berniesanders has proved that the metaphor of larger eating smaller is appropriate, IMHO.), should be limited to the number of votes I can cast on posts I have completely read, and commented substantively on, in an hour or so.
Take your time. I have all day.
Edit: spehllingh airrohrz
Think of bots with several hundred new accounts trying to game the system.
Is it really 100 votes? I thought it was related to your # of vests and percentage.
Regarding the term Minnow
Obviously you don't agree. So let's enjoy the term:
Minnow, minnow, minnow, minnow.
I don't though. I'm not heavily into long threaded debates. I've done that many times in my past and at the end, it just leads nowhere. The person you debate with eventually stops listening and reasoning, and the debate slowly gets worse and worse to the point, you have two people talking AT each other, and not talking TO each other anymore. Right about now, where we sit is my mark for that..
Thanks for the comments and your view point.
Well, as I hoped for more substantive criticism, I want to let you know that I'm taking our discussion onto my blog, in a post there, so as to not further clog yours, and allow you to comment there if you'd like.
Cheers!