You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My etiquette rules for authoring at Steem
I agree with a lot of your points.
Regarding self-voting, I think a certain extent is ok. Of course 0% is ideal, but below 5% is (for me) completely acceptable. Up to 10-15% is ok-ish, and above I see a problem. But it also depends a lot on when the self-vote is triggered (by doing it in the first 30 min you "steal" more rewards from other curators).
For commenting, I sometimes just want to let the author know that I appreciate his work, without adding any content to a diskussion. In that case, I try to write more than just "good post" by writing 1-2 sentences that relate to his content.
I read something similar in a recent??? @steemitblog ??? post talking about changes coming up in the next hard fork. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the statement.
The problem I'm having wrapping my head around is the idea that first you create something out of thin air (a post you created using your brain), without which there would be nothing to curate. Shouldn't you have the advantage when it comes to curation?
Yes, you are getting 75% as the author. Authors do not get curation rewards for self-voting, but if you vote in the first 30 min, a proportion of the curation rewards is changed to author rewards. Thus, the curators get less than their 25%.
No self-voting would be fairest, yes. But it's easy to game, people would just create a secondary account, delegate all their steam power there and self-vote.
aha! I didn't realize it got switched to author rewards.
off subject... toxicology, huh? As in the movie Outbreak?
Well no, this was a virus, if I recall it correctly.
Toxicology as the science of toxins, i.e. harmful chemicals. I work as a scientist, mainly on assessing the risk of food contaminants.