No, it's stupid. He believes when you flag someone the Steem goes from their pocket into your own. He still yet to understand the concept of **potential rewards** and the fact flagging someone is a sacrifice of your own rewards. I'd think you would have known that by now...
I'm in with smidge.
The top ten voters take ~30% of the pool.
Taking rewards with flags increases the top ten's 30% slice of the pie, at the expense of the flagger, and the flagged's voters.
Big votes skew the math even more by knocking the smallest voters off the long tail.
A 500mv cap on voting lets the math function as designed.
A 1000mv cap might be tolerable.
The status quo has failed to thrive, imo.
The clock is ticking.
If I use voting power to flag a post for $10 (which I don’t have the Voting Power to do, but using an extreme) I would highly doubt that would affect my rewards even 1 cent as every author would split it and I personally wouldn’t even notice it.
In that process though I lost $10 of voting power and their $10 of potential rewards get returned to the reward pool (a total loss of $20 returned if you are bad with math).
I agree that the benefit for any one account may be small spread out 50,000 ways, but the ratio is the same.
30% of flagged rewards go to the posts voted by the top 10 voters.
If the math wasn't blown out by the ninjamine, that would be more noticeable.
As it is, it still is, but minimal in the larger picture, I agree.
Doesn't change the fact that most of the increase to the pool from flagging goes to the top 10 voters and their beneficiaries.
I math roughly most days, it is in reverse proportion to the amount of time since imbibing.