Whoops who dropped these charts here. Nothing to see here move along.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sort: Trending
One of these is vote buying, but with extra steps, right? (Including $Premium!)
Nah man, delegators don't get upvotes, they get only LEO rewards from leo.bounties. Leo man himself said so on X. https://x.com/inleoio/status/1961489239834497433
But I am not going to comment on the Premium stuff, I think that is more of a gray area.
- Delegators are not factored in
- Premiums are also not factored in
Our curation team has two ways that they curate:
- The /new feed on INLEO
- The /Trending feed on INLEO
1/2
*/new feed for articles & /trending feed for Threads
Figured that deserved some clarity. We scroll all the new articles being written and read/curate manually
Then we scroll /trending for the most engaged-with/popular (based on views and other trending metrics) and curate those
When you delegate, you are given 0 favoritism. In fact, from a frontend perspective, we can't even see your delegation when curating
When you're premium, you get some organic favoritism since you:
- Appear more in feeds
- Have a checkmark
There is no rule for premium curation
2/2
Seems that BT made up his mind about how our curation system worked but didn't check any onchain data nor even reached out to us to ask
This could have easily been clarified or discussed or even changed if some wrongdoing was found. Unilateral downvotes is an overreach
3/2
When you delegate, you are given 0 favoritism.
You can say this but the data shows otherwise. Let's say that I agree that your curators show 0 favoritism. People that delegate to you still have found a way to game your curation service to receive a larger share of the votes. Would you agree with that?
In fact, from a frontend perspective, we can't even see your delegation when curating
That is not a great argument, curangel also can't see delegations to them on whatever frontend they use. Maybe that could be good option for curators? @asgarth
but didn't check any onchain data
If he checked the onchain data he would have seen the charts above. How is that a good look?
Unilateral downvotes is an overreach
All votes are unilateral.
When you're premium, you get some organic favoritism since you
As I said I am not commenting on the Premium, it is a more gray area. It can be interpreted both ways.
Maybe that could be good option for curators?
@mrtats this seems a very long thread and I don't have much interest in catching up with this topic.
But focusing on the above ...you can easily see the delegators from PeakD wallet:
No I meant as in seeing if someone is delegating to you when you are voting. An easier way for a curator to get warned about that they are voting on someone that delegate to them. When you have 100s of delegators the wallet page is not really that helpful.
I'm not sure there are many curators with tons of delegations doing their votes manually on PeakD.
But we can eventually consider adding this here. What do you think?
What about the vote bar? Because I think that part is only shown if you are in the post proper.
You seem to have an open mind, so I am happy to pose this question and see your thoughts / if you have the data on it to verify yourself
I know for an absolute fact that delegating to @leo.voter has 0 bearing whatsoever on received upvotes. I know this because I personally work with and oversee the curators and I know the exact parameters given. Now, my aim is to show you the same story (as I know it is difficult to subjectively explain).
Is it also possible that we just have a lot of delegators who are also highly active creators on the platform?
- compare the number of delegators to @leo.voter and the spread of HP vs curangel (and other services)
- compare the activity of delegators to @leo.voter to the activities of other delegators on those other services
I am not well-versed in curangel, I just pulled the delegator lists up side-by-side and it seems the majority of HP is from a handful of accounts. Nothing against curangel btw, I am just showing that @leo.voter has:
- a wide array of delegators of all sizes
- an active userbase amongst said delegators
When I look at the number of delegators to @leo.voter and their activity on INLEO, it speaks a much different story than Curangel who only has a few delegators with the majority of HP
leo.voter has a very wide base of delegators and the culture of INLEO is highly reflexive (if you are involved in one aspect of LEO, you likely dabble in many aspects of LEO and therefore organically are a part of being voted, delegating, owning the tokens, being premium, etc.)
Your other points are valid and I understand. I think the delegator base paints a different story. I will also leave the Premium discussion aside and focus on this "vote 4 delegation" issue. It just couldn't be farther from the truth of how we curate
When curating, we literally scroll the /new feed for blog posts to read & vote and we scroll the /trending feed for threads to read & vote (Threads are usually ranked & voted based on engagement, views, etc. metrics as they are less substantive from a raw word count POV)
There's 0 favoritism in terms of this model and I would respectfully disagree with your take that people have found a way to game this. I believe the delegator list and activities being far more wide-ranging and diverse (and reflexive, as I said in the above comment) paint the flip side of the coin
Can this be interpreted as an audience who heavily uses the ecosystem of products/services or interpreted as people gaming the system?
My definition of gaming the system would be they found some way to cheat themselves into getting more votes. This isn't possible in my book as we manually scroll the feeds and upvote content.
The majority of content we curate (nearly all) is content published from https://inleo.io. This is normal favoritism as we are obviously favoriting people who utilize / post from our app. I see nothing wrong with this model -- and please correct me if this is an approach that invites scrutiny.
I guess I am finding other ways of saying the same thing; if you look at the same data you're looking at but look at it with the lens of: "leo people use leo products most heavily and therefore tend to be curated more"
Can this be interpreted as an audience who heavily uses the ecosystem of products/services or interpreted as people gaming the system?
Yes, this is precisely how someone would game the system. If I am a highly active creator and I know that leo.voter would vote me because I am such a creator. I could delegate to the leo.voter and get both the APR leo.voter gives me and get the votes leo.voter will give me because I am highly active.
I guess I am finding other ways of saying the same thing; if you look at the same data you're looking at but look at it with the lens of: "leo people use leo products most heavily and therefore tend to be curated more"
Sure, but other way to word this; "If you use our products and delegate to us you will receive more rewards."
The majority of content we curate (nearly all) is content published from https://inleo.io. This is normal favoritism as we are obviously favoriting people who utilize / post from our app. I see nothing wrong with this model -- and please correct me if this is an approach that invites scrutiny.
If the majority of the content you curate is published from inleo frontend. It makes it easier to game it doesn't it.
If I use inleo and if I am highly active creator I will more likely to receive a vote + if I have premium then my posts would be more likely to shown to the curators because it gets promoted. See how these things add up to a higher and higher chance of getting curated. What happens when I delegate to leo.voter knowing this? While individually they might not give favoritism to a delegator, when added up they do create that favoritism.
Would you agree that ecency is closer to leo.voter?
They have more delegators with even wider spread than leo.voter and they have very much active content creators and they still have 20% less vote weight going to people that delegate to them compared to leo.voter
There are a lot of “if” statements here that all make a lot of assumptions. The only solution to what you’re posing is if we don’t curate people who use our platform
That seems oddly backward. I also think you’re using the words “gaming the system” very loosely
Gaming a system implies there is a predictable path to cheating. This is not the case
Can you use the platform a lot in hopes of getting curated more? Of course
Can you delegate to the platform’s curation account to receive daily LEO payouts? Yes
The two have nothing to do with each other. You could also delegate and make posts and never get curated. Delegating is a non factor for curation and therefore delegators cannot “game” by delegating
You can’t knock a platform for curating the users who are using their platform.
The argument against us is that we have pay4vote which is far from the truth. We have an ecosystem where using all Leo products is highly encouraged. People use them all and our core community is the most active community in terms of involvement. Punishing that makes little sense
There are a lot of “if” statements here that all make a lot of assumptions. The only solution to what you’re posing is if we don’t curate people who use our platform
If statements are not material to the argument. You can remove the ifs and the argument will stay the same. Because the data clearly shows this, no matter how you deny it.
If the majority of the content you curate is published from inleo frontend. It makes it easier to game it doesn't it.
This if statement is there to confirm what you have just said, that you curate content mostly published from inleo.
If I use inleo and if I am highly active creator I will more likely to receive a vote
These if statements do not materially change the argument. People that use inleo and that are highly active are more likely to receive votes. That is what you established yourself by your question.
if I have premium then my posts would be more likely to shown to the curators because it gets promoted.
This if statement does not change the argument, you confirmed that premium gives you favorability because you appear in the lists more.
You didn't deign to answer my question about ecency. Would you agree that they are most similar to leo.voter?
I am going to add another data here.
14.3% of rshares given by leo.voter goes to big delegators(~5000HP+) while on ecency only 1.2% of rshares given by them goes to big delegators.
@holoz0r I believe someone spread this rumor that this is how Premium / @leo.voter delegations work
I dropped a few comments here but a rumor does not equal reality. This unilateral action against INLEO users could've easily been resolved
This makes it look like "Buy premium, get more votes", which as a consumer looks like vote buying.
We could add the word “potential” in there. Curation in our community is defined as “your post is read and considered for upvotes”. Curation is never guaranteed — we often get people asking stuff like that and our answers are always like this:
