Viewing a response to: @acidyo/q5lc9j
Exactly, linear curation based on stake-size without any timing constraints. The whole point of this timing *thing* must have been designed for some kind of reason, but I can't think what that is.
| author | slobberchops |
|---|---|
| permlink | q5ld30 |
| category | curation |
| json_metadata | {"app":"steemit/0.1"} |
| created | 2020-02-12 13:49:48 |
| last_update | 2020-02-12 13:49:48 |
| depth | 3 |
| children | 1 |
| last_payout | 2020-02-19 13:49:48 |
| cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
| total_payout_value | 0.052 HBD |
| curator_payout_value | 0.053 HBD |
| pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
| promoted | 0.000 HBD |
| body_length | 197 |
| author_reputation | 2,457,251,666,767,393 |
| root_title | "Curation and trending post-EIP" |
| beneficiaries | [] |
| max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
| percent_hbd | 10,000 |
| post_id | 95,368,919 |
| net_rshares | 540,722,952,671 |
| author_curate_reward | "" |
| voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| acidyo | 0 | 540,722,952,671 | 4% |
Rewarding content discovery, i.e. newcomers with the penalty to disincentivize bots from voting on everything like @wang used to do very early on in Steem's history. I do wonder how it would work in this day and age with the current rules, though.
| author | acidyo |
|---|---|
| permlink | q5ldiy |
| category | curation |
| json_metadata | {"users":["wang"],"app":"steemit/0.2"} |
| created | 2020-02-12 13:59:24 |
| last_update | 2020-02-12 13:59:24 |
| depth | 4 |
| children | 0 |
| last_payout | 2020-02-19 13:59:24 |
| cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
| total_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
| curator_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
| pending_payout_value | 0.000 HBD |
| promoted | 0.000 HBD |
| body_length | 247 |
| author_reputation | 3,381,018,584,718,067 |
| root_title | "Curation and trending post-EIP" |
| beneficiaries | [] |
| max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 HBD |
| percent_hbd | 10,000 |
| post_id | 95,369,281 |
| net_rshares | 0 |
hiveblocks