Tx 79a37219a01af5567474910a0a2e01b888e5cdf4@17265290

Included in block 17,265,290 at 2017-11-16 06:38:00 (UTC)


Raw transaction

ref_block_num29,296
ref_block_prefix3,447,488,044
expiration2017-11-16 06:47:54
operations
0.
0.comment
1.
parent_authortimcliff
parent_permlinkre-mattclarke-re-timcliff-whitepaper-discussion-on-voting-abuse-20170831t034234184z
authorsmooth
permlinkre-timcliff-re-mattclarke-re-timcliff-whitepaper-discussion-on-voting-abuse-20171116t063754200z
title""
body"1. The current split is not even 75/25 it is more like 98/12 (last count I saw; may be inaccurate). Going back to 50/50 (or frankly even actual 75/25) would be a big change and would likely have large effects (including much, much_less_ relative incentive to self-vote). That's not to say there are no circumstances where someone would still prefer to self-vote, but it would likely move the needle a lot.
2. My goal in advocating for such a change would not be to change the behavior of the abusive users, that likely can't be helped. It would be to encourage more non-abusive users to participate in curation, by rewarding them more consistently and in larger amounts. Not only does that yield a direct payoff in more rewards to non-abusive users but it also reduces both the influence and rewards flowing to abusers by virtue of dilution (since the total is fixed)."
json_metadata{"tags":["abuse"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
extensions[]
signatures
0.207132ca56fbe600cc101e665bd82e7887bb1974bad0070a3d973be766607a4bc43a807b9feb7e03adfd4668adfb2e3a4df16127c792d465ddfdfe4976b7b546cb
transaction_id79a37219a01af5567474910a0a2e01b888e5cdf4
block_num17,265,290
transaction_num6