Tx 79a37219a01af5567474910a0a2e01b888e5cdf4@17265290
Included in block
17,265,290
at 2017-11-16 06:38:00 (UTC)
Raw transaction
ref_block_num | 29,296 |
---|
ref_block_prefix | 3,447,488,044 |
---|
expiration | 2017-11-16 06:47:54 |
---|
operations | 0. | 0. | comment |
---|
1. | parent_author | timcliff |
---|
parent_permlink | re-mattclarke-re-timcliff-whitepaper-discussion-on-voting-abuse-20170831t034234184z |
---|
author | smooth |
---|
permlink | re-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_id | 79a37219a01af5567474910a0a2e01b888e5cdf4 |
---|
block_num | 17,265,290 |
---|
transaction_num | 6 |
---|