>Its like campaign finance reform. Everyone supports it. Later.

Except that we have actually been developing and spending money on it. This is just blatant disregard. Much of this information is available in GitHub. Thank you.

>Except that we have actually been developing and spending money on it.

on making the reward curve more linear?  How do you spend money on that... did you commission a study or something.

@smooth idk if they get paid by the hour or theyre salaried or what, but it seems to me (based on looking at github and also a couple of theoretical posts) that implementing the rsahres to vhares conversion is fairly modular like vote regeneration.  That is to say, there's a line that says something like vshares = rhsare ^2 and you change that line.

Looking at it, it seems like the reality is a bit more complicated.  But still all told youre talking about changing the variables in like a dozen lines of code.  How much of an money-investment is that really?  Especially if the devs are salaried (which you would think so, right?).   Enough to prove just by virtue of its magnitude that theyre serious about it, and not just floating it to appease the many people who want to see the change?

(fyi, looking at 913 which changed it back, cuz i know where that is, to figure out what changes it took).

> This is just blatant disregard

noticed this after the fact.... are you searching around for 'reckless disregard'  like in _times_... cause if so, LOL.

@sigmajin The developers who are working on the code are paid (I assume; no inside knowledge). It is fair to say 'spending money' when they are paid to develop code, which you can see in github.

@beanz It actually did, I have seen my meager 300SP raise up one cent on a post worth $1.64 and 10 cents on a post worth $17.39.

More SP = More say.

It's an interesting experiment but lets not pretend the top tier trickles all the way down.  Whoever is next in line becomes the most powerful and who is to say they are better voters or deserve the power more.  The vote abstinance never gave "the majority" more say.

of course he isn't arguing that.  Why argue that super controversial, bad PR point, when you can just kick the can down the road and say "yeah i totally support it maybe well put it in (some unspecified amount of time) later"

Its like campaign finance reform.  Everyone supports it.  Later.

Smooth has adjusted his votes accordingly and saying there's no methodology is not correct, not only is there the methodology of downvoting where bots/whales have upvoted therefore the rule is evident but its neither sloppy in that regard nor outside consensus, because it's also evident that it wasn't a singular effort and for consensus to happen for such an experiment is unfathomable in the real world, so the consensus happened between those that took part. 
How did they game the system if they used the voting power to effectively negate any gain? The experiment allowed me with meager 300SP to influence posts not worth even $2 by one cent and post worth $17 by 10 cents, therefore it's a success in that regard.

If all whales would have participated in this experiment smooth and co wouldn't have to downvote anything,  unfortunately there will always be a few whales that won't go along with the plan so Im not sure how else this experiment would have been possible..

>I think youre assuming a causation there that really hasnt been established. IIUC, it was a pretty bull day overall for alts

It's been bull day for weeks for alts and steem was always the only one in the red, why is it different today?   Also the price hasn't gone up for a very long time so why is it up today? I don't think its a coincidence.  These blockchains have value because they empower people, the more they do the more value they have.