Where are the Votes (SP) going?

avatar
(Edited)

I've been playing with some SQL script for the past couple of hours, trying to find out who's been collecting the voting SP over the past 7 days.

The lists below come with a major caveat in that the right column on each list assumes that every vote cast was cast when the voter was at 100% voting power. Obviously that is unlikely to be the case, but it should serve as a reasonable figure to order by.

Also, downvotes have not been knocked off the totals.

I have the full lists in Excel for anyone who is interested. They didn't present to well in markup and that is the reason for the images.

So that's the top 100 'voter to author'. As you would probably expect, burnpost makes plenty of appearances from the larger accounts, but there are a couple of interesting names being supported often by some large accounts.

The next chart is the complete list, pivoted by author and ordered by total SP voted on their content over the past 7 days. Again, the total VP assumes that each vote was made when the voters VP was at 100%.



This should pretty much match up with the top 7 day earners.

@burnpost, the STEEM sink, has almost 4 times the total of the 2nd account in the list.

Three of my favourite authors are in that list.

And the rest is up to you to analyse :)

Cheers

Asher



select a.name as voter, (a.vesting_shares-delegated_vesting_shares+received_vesting_shares)*509.421/1000000 as sp, v.author
,count(v.voter+v.author) as votes, sum(v.weight) as weight, CONVERT(DECIMAL(16,2), sum((v.weight)+0.0)/10000) as 'same as 100% votes', 
((a.vesting_shares-delegated_vesting_shares+received_vesting_shares)*509.421/1000000)*sum(v.weight)/10000 as total_SP_voted_with
from txvotes v
inner join accounts a on v.voter = a.name
where v.weight > 0
and v.timestamp > getdate()-7 -- number of days to scan
group by a.name, (a.vesting_shares-delegated_vesting_shares+received_vesting_shares)*509.421/1000000,  v.weight, v.author
having 
((a.vesting_shares-delegated_vesting_shares+received_vesting_shares)*509.421/1000000)*sum(v.weight)/10000 > 200000 -- 200,000 or more in SP
 order by ((a.vesting_shares-delegated_vesting_shares+received_vesting_shares)*509.421/1000000)*sum(v.weight)/10000 desc



0
0
0.000
70 comments
avatar

According to the Bible, Are Christians forbidden to eat Hare? (Part 3 of 5)

(Sorry for sending this comment. We are not looking for our self profit, our intentions is to preach the words of God in any means possible.)



Comment what you understand of our Youtube Video to receive our full votes. We have 30,000 #SteemPower. It's our little way to Thank you, our beloved friend.
Check our Discord Chat
Join our Official Community: https://beta.steemit.com/trending/hive-182074

0
0
0.000
avatar

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Interesting stats. We can see that a lot of big accounts support the potato and burn posts. I guess they think those do some good. It's also clear that some people are making a lot more than most of us could hope to. I am sure some of that is down to fishing for curation rewards, but that's the way of things. At least the curation projects are helping spread the rewards better than previously.

Cheers. Have a !BEER.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah, while burnpost isn't for everyone, the rewards (or lack of) mean there should be more on the table going forward.

Some accounts are doing really well!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

It is largely because of much of the rest of the list that @burnpost gets a lot of its support.

If reward payouts were efficiently going to true influencers or successful onboarding, those of us supporting burnpost would see a lot less reason to vote that way. But in fact because much of the rewards goes to enrich a few people with little obvious systemic benefit, why not instead take the win in lower inflation?

I've said numerous times that I would prefer to (and sometimes do) vote for truly compelling content and engagement over burnpost, but as long as that isn't what is happening, I proudly support burnpost to help retain investor value for Steem until we successfully revamp, pivot, or organically get our house in order.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'll support the good content for what little influence I can have. Those who concentrate on maximising their short term returns may be harming Steem. It desperately needs to grow and attract real influencers. Then the price will increase and I'd rather have 25,000 Steem at $1 than 100,000 at 1c.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

If reward payouts were efficiently going to true influencers or successful onboarding, those of us supporting burnpost would see a lot less reason to vote that way

I don't get that. Much of the rewards goes to enrich those few people either way, voting on @burnpost doesn't change that. On the contrary, by lowering the inflation what they earn is theoretically worth even more. And not giving out rewards to the tail is deadly for onboarding in my view.

I'm aware that curation projects which spread votes aren't able to vote solely on exceptional content, but at least those votes dilute the earnings of the people on the list and motivate newcomers to stay around a bit longer.

//edit:
After letting my thoughts propell around it a bit more I feel even stronger against the burnposts.
Using the golden rule/categorical imperative, I wondered what would happen if everyone acted a certain way:

  • self voting: inflation is high, stays with investors
  • burnposts: inflation is lower, but still stays with investors
  • delegate to projects: inflation is distributed, the more projects/curators are active the better

Of course it's a (maybe a bit overly) simplified approach, but to me it feels like the difference between the first and the second isn't too big, mainly because investors are rewarded for the burns. It doesn't help with growth, and that's the function I see behind curation rewards.

Lowering the inflation that way benefits everyone who's already involved, be it an investor or an established author or a spammer, but it hurts the tail we need to grow.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is something I discussed with @smooth a lot but couldn’t really get a consensus. Your 3 options: can it be proven/addressed with data?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The options are purely theoretical of course. We could use the inflation rate to calculate the theoretical distribution curve over time using each of the options, where option 3 could be split in a lot of different subcurves. But what would that show?

I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but roundabout they should be fine:
inflation rate: 10% (for the sake of rounding, it's actually lower)
a) dao 10%
b) witness 10%
c) inflation on SP 15%
d) curation 32.5%
e) posts 32.5%

Self voters receive 80% (c+d+e) of the total inflation and leave 20% for witnesses and the dao - both basically developers and (self-)marketers.

Burning the posting rewards removes e) and changes the remaining as follows:
inflation rate: 6.75%
a) 14.8%
b) 14.8%
c) 22.2%
d) 48.1%

Now we have 70% of the inflation for the burn voters, and 30% for witnesses and the dao. Not a huge change in percentages and still no distribution outside of those two groups.

For option 3 let's assume curators who vote 50% established, 50% new users (which is pretty optimistic). The percentages are the same as for option 1, so:
20% for witnesses and dao, 63.75% for stakeholders and 16.25% for new users.
16.25% of 10% inflation mean a dilution of 1.625%.
With votes going 100% to non-stakeholders that would switch to 47.5:32.5, bringing the maximum possible dilution to 3.25%

Okay, now to the interesting part :D To calculate the real effect regarding dilution of stake, we need to include the vesting ratio. Hopefully more or less accurate numbers I found quickly state that 210M Steem are powered up, at a total of 360M, which results in a ratio of 58.3%, let's say 60. This means that 40% of stake which the inflation rate is based on gives up on their share on c and d, leaving it for the rest to grab. It factually raises the rewards, giving the ones using c and d 66% more rewards than if all stake was active.

1000 STEEM created actually distribute the following way:

option 1&3:
a) 76
b) 76
c) 189
d) 412
e) 247

option 2:
a) 101
b) 101
c) 252
d) 546

So - while option 1 leads to a self-allocation of 85%, option 2 lowers that to 80%, leaving the other 5% to witnesses and the dao.
Option 3 allocates 60% of the inflation to the voters.

Conclusions:

I) The maximum distribution rate if all votes would go to non-stakeholders is 2.5% of the total stake per year, plus 1.5% via witnesses and dao, resulting in a total maximum dilution of 4% per year. All those values are actually lower, because I think the inflation rate is closer to 8% than 10%.

II) Burning post rewards only has a minimal effect on self-allocation of inflation compared to self-voting. In this purely theoretic scenario at least. In reality there are a lot more factors, for example that an individual using option 1 hurts everyone else, while option 2 is neutral in that regard.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Holy shit. I got carried away I think :D

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I need to write this down on paper and pencil and digest. Thanks, both of you @smooth and @pharesim!!

and I know you hate them tokens :) But I got a new toy and I will use it!!

!ENGAGE 50

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I need to write this down on paper and pencil and digest

That, and posting about it, would probably be helpful.

That's pretty much what I was referring to when I was commenting about marginal value and such, and one can turn some of this into fairly simple equations that could help improve understanding. I'm as guilty of anyone of throwing a lot of opinions around without really doing the "homework".

The thing about most (not all) of the milking/self-voting posts is they actually have some positive value to Steem, it is just that they are grossly over-rewarded. And many sincere (not intended as milking) contributions likewise have very low value. If they are getting nothing, that can be improved, but if they are getting too much, that's not good either. As with most economics, the questions are more on the margin than of absolutes.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

for example that an individual using option 1 hurts everyone else, while option 2 is neutral in that regard.

I think that is actually a huge distinction, not a minimal effect.

That's not even the full extent of it either. Self-voting is "sticky" in a way that burnpost is not. Someone voting for burnpost need only see something with some sort of vaguely positive value to rationally decide to vote for that instead, but a self-voter won't because they would be giving up their own rewards.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I don't agree that reducing inflation benefits investors really. It is neutral.

There are basically three classes of usage rewards/inflation can be allocated to:

  1. Positive (spending $1 results in >$1 contributed back to the value of the system)
  2. Neutral (spending $1 results in exactly $1 contributed value)
  3. Negative (spending $1 results in <$1 contributed value)

Burnpost is #2 (but see note at the bottom for an exception), it doesn't help or hurt anyone.

Now, since the pool is short term zero sum, when one upvotes in any of these categories, it reduces the others. But now you have to consider not only aggregate value but marginal value. This gets kind of complicated, so if there is enough interest, we can dive deeper into it elsewhere.

Ultimately, I think there should be an equilibrium where voters have to choose between #1 and #2; unless the system is very broken #3 should be driven to almost zero. The choice between #1 and #2 depends on marginal value, not total value. And FWIW, I do not think we are in a situation where #3 has been driven to almost zero, which is to say I consider the rewarding function to be very broken, still.

To that point, most of the recipients on this list, who post day after day and get rewarded day after day either by self-voting, vote trading, bought votes, or whatever other manner, are not the tail. That is to say, again, I do not believe whatsoever that #3 has been driven to near-zero. The system is in fact, still pretty broken (though somewhat less so than before EIP).

Some other points of (mild) disagreement.

  1. Self-voting does not stay with investors (plaural), and is very, very harmful. It stays with the particular investor (singular) who does it, paid for almost entirely by the rest of investors. This is a key difference. When one investor self-votes, other investors are now in a prisoners' dilemma situation where they already see the other prisoner defecting. This ultimately forces all investors into choosing between self-voting (and vote-selling, vote-trading, etc. which are all equivalent) or suffering losses, and was essentially the path we were on prior to EIP. The system then collapses, with no rewards left for the tail. By contrast, voting for burnpost is perfectly compatible with the same or other voters also voting for a category 1 tail, without anyone needing to take losses to do it. Also, this perfectly fits with your model of "what if everyone did this?". Everyone can make some votes for burnpost and some votes for category 1 contributions (when seeing an opportunity for marginal gain there), and all would be fine.
  2. Delegating to 'projects' is not a panacea whatsoever. Some of them might be good, but there have surely been, and continue to be, 'projects' which are ultimately disguised self-voting (i.e. very, very harmful), or just dumb ideas which don't add value.

Final note: In the situation when SBD is worth more than $1, burnpost shifts into category 1. That's because 1 STEEM gets converted into 1 STEEM worth of SBD (assuming SBD to be worth $1) via the payout code, which then is traded by burnpost into more than 1 STEEM, which is then burned (returned to the system/stakeholders). In this instance, there is a net gain. That doesn't mean there won't be other potential payouts which are category 1, value adding to a greater degree (and therefore more worthy of votes than burnpost), but the bar gets higher and higher as the value of SBD increases above $1.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I agree mostly, #3 is the problem and that's what work needs to focus on. What puzzles me is the reasoning that users choose #2 because of that. Clearly the choice should be #1, or not?

With projects I meant trustworthy curation groups. In total there is a quite huge number of genuine curators here, which would be happy to spread more towards the tail.

I got into a lot of detail in my reply to azircon's question, and also mentioned the huge difference between #2 and #3 (your 1.) in the real environment. #2 benefits investors as a group over those who could've received the vote instead. It just doesn't hurt investors choosing #1.

A mixed scenario actually works well "if everybody did it" and #3 was solved. At least as long as the outgoing votes aren't mostly self-votes or votes for friends then (which seems to be the case for quite a few people voting on burnposts now).

And fully agree with the final note :D

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

What puzzles me is the reasoning that users choose #2 because of that. Clearly the choice should be #1, or not?

Well #1 has to exist (which requires creativity and initiative on the part of the posters, so you can't assume infinite quantities at all times) and be identifiable. Certainly some of that does. I vote for it. It also in many cases (not all) has a finite capacity: If a post is already fully rewarded to the extent of its value by the time you considering voting on it, you can't vote for it, even though you might entirely support it getting the rewards it is already voted to receive. (An exception would be posts which are raising funds for something with a large or essentially unlimited budget.) This gets into the marginal vs. total question I alluded to earlier.

"Not" (by which I guess you mean not voting) is only a good choice if you think that your vote for none-of-the-above is causing more marginal harm by reducing rewards from #1 than marginal benefit by reducing rewards from #3. This is obviously a judgment call. If you think everything is working great then clearly you would have no reason to vote for #2. But IMO that's rather absurd given Steem's lack of success on almost every front: A system which effectively allocates budget to where it can do the most good and is most effective in drawing value into Steem should be akin to a superpower, particularly when few competitors have this. We're clearly not doing that.

In an ideal world: #3 wouldn't exist (or would be fully downvoted) and #2 would only be a sensible vote if everything in #1 were already fully rewarded. But we don't live in an ideal world, at least this blockchain and its rewarding system certainly does not. #3 routinely does not get downvoted because of too much drama, too much unrewarded effort, etc.

Also, most of these judgments are subjective in terms of what constitutes value and such, and that's okay. I am less concerned about people disagreeing on what or where is the positive value in good faith than people gaming the system to extract value from it or people not downvoting when the latter is going on (which then ensures it will, because there are always people who will take advantage when they can). That's a systemic problem here. Since we don't have a solution, none-of-the-above (i.e. burnpost) goes up in value from where it would otherwise be if we had more effective downvoting.

Likewise for curation initiatives. Sure there might be some excellent curation initiatives but I don't really see a good way to figure out what is good and what is not (is there anyone curating the curators?), and for the most part I am suspicious of them given past experiences and some of what I still see today. Finally, most of them don't downvote or don't downvote effectively, which is yet another reason for me to not support them and retain control over my own vote power instead. Still, if someone is able to convince me that this or that curation initiative is doing a great job recognizing value, then I'm open to being sold on delegating to it. That doesn't happen by default. When I support burnpost, I see that as an case of "do no harm" relative to delegating to a curation initiative that I don't know is helping or hurting.

Finally, I'm also comfortable that voters can decide how much of the pool should go to none-of-the-above. If burnpost gets no rewards for a long time I'll probably stop posting it. If it gets small rewards or large rewards, IMO that is just people making a budgetary decision.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm mostly on your side that it isn't harmful, and definitely not in relation to #3. I see a small harm when good authors simply get overlooked because it's convenient to be neutral and vote on burnpost. It's not motivating for them to see that it's mostly #3 and #2 out there, so everyone going #1 instead counts.

I intentionally avoided mentioning it by name, but
regarding curation projects I'm really happy how @curangel works out. While slip ups happen, the general allocation is pretty good in my view. It's public info which curator curated what, so if one of them goes bad it's hopefully recognized sooner than later. Votes also aren't happening instantly and there are a few people checking the queue from time to time. Downvotes are used and delegators can decide where their share of those goes (which isn't used enough, it would be nice to spread those further).
We mostly have very small delegators though, the original idea of giving an option besides autovoting to bigger stakeholders didn't go off. I also published the code so people could set up their own group if they prefer to have better control over who curates with their stake.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm open to considering some delegation to @curangel. Last I had heard (perhaps incorrectly), it had stopped downvoting, which made it a non-starter from my perspective. Thanks for the info.

Where can I find a curangel "mission statement" which describes the intended criteria used for upvotes? I'm all for spreading to a tail as a method to attract new users and promote growth (with some nagging concerns that this hasn't worked out so far) but what I've seen from a lot of curation initiatives in the past, there is often a lot of emphasis on rewarding authors just for posting even if the content frankly isn't very good (i.e. it may not be complete utter trash, but no professional site would pay a dime for it, nor would it earn much if anything on revenue-share sites) and certainly isn't good enough to attract a lot of traffic to Steem-powered sites or boost the value of Steem by a sort of reputational halo effect (in fact, often the opposite).

Which I guess is a long winded way of circling back to my support for burnpost: Apart from rewarding engagement modestly (which I support and do), I just don't believe there is that much being posted on Steem that is worthy of real, monetary value. I do find a few such items occasionally, but certainly not every day.

I'd love to see more, but I just don't.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Downvoting stopped for a while, that's correct. When I coded the project I expected the downvote feature to be used more than it actually was, and required it to use all its dv power constantly. It wasn't used nearly as much as I thought, so in the end I was constantly filling up the list which caused a small burnout after a few weeks.
It's up again, still using all its power, but more at once when vp is high. That way I only need to intervene every couple of days, and we're better prepared for more people adding stuff more infrequently.

There's a small about text on https://curangel.com/, but that doesn't answer your question I think. The mission of curangel could very broadly be stated to "reward undervalued posts". There's a upper reward limit and some other hardcoded rules to prevent the worst of abuse (i.e. max 1 vote per author per curator per week), but basically we leave our curators the freedom to define it themselves. The daily compilation lists the votes by curator which makes them attributable, and they're all available on our discord if there's a wish to discuss a vote.

So I'm not sure if the voting meets your quality standards. The tail it votes is huge, so there will naturally be stuff in between where not everyone agrees. Also, the vote values posts finally receive are a little randomized and not at all dependend on the actual quality of that specific post.
For my requirements its doing its job well, spreading value on an active base of sincere users. It doesn't fix PoB by itself, but it's a useful addition to the much required manual curation imo.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

So I'm not sure if the voting meets your quality standards. The tail it votes is huge, so there will naturally be stuff in between where not everyone agrees.

I'm not sure that it doesn't. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree on everything.

A huge tail is a good thing IMO, but at the same time it can be abused (if the tail consists of a lot of sock puppet accounts from people taking advantage of the idea that "voting for a tail is good" and not actual growth in the user base). My bottom line view on this is that as long as we don't see net user base growth and Steem gaining in overall visibility and influence (e.g. as visible in alexa rankings) it is all kind of a failure, even if well intended (not intending to single out curangel here, in case it seemed that way; it is even possible that with more support it could help turn the whole ship around).

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

@smooth I think this is one of the richest discussion I have read in recent time, and I keep reading it over and over again.

Just a comment on curangel's downvote. It is back and alive and thriving! It is being used daily (twice), and it is open to all delegator. Currently this is the only project that allows it as far as I know. I am one of the early investor in the project along with @pharesim's entire stake. I feel completely aligned with the goal of the project.

PS. if nothing else I will combine this comment thread as a post. So that we keep it organized and reflect/add/enhance it over time. Trouble is anything I post will be downvoted.... oh well.. that is life :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Can you do a top author list of downvotes received next? :P

0
0
0.000
avatar

Should be possible with a slight change to the query :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nice work!

I wonder how the distribtion across the top 100 has changed post HF.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I've had a few goes at this and it's a tricky one. Ignoring names makes it a bit easier, so comparing the earnings of the top 100 over a set period prior to the fork v's recently is probably the best bet.

I'll see, this stuff takes hours of titting about! :D

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nice one Asher. What you ideally want is the rshares on the votes, but SteemSQL doesn't seem to provide that. I've had to pull apart API responses to get that info.

I think this is pretty indicative of where the big "relationships" are though.

0
0
0.000
avatar

yeah rshares would be the gold, a total nightmare for average scripters though!

vests is possible but just don't make sense to most (including me) with the numbers being so big.

It's good enough to see where the money is I think, cheers :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

rshares are available in SteemSQL! You will find them in Comments..active_votes.

Unfortunately, it's a big JSON string you have to parse. Not very handy nor resource-friendly for big queries.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, I have seen it there in JSON though if I have to write a script to extract it I may as well use the API. I should have been more accurate - the data is there but not really SQL extractable / queryable.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It's extractable/queryable, but you will have to play with SQL JSON functions. Challenging, isn't it? 😉

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The short answer is 'yes'.

A look at that column for my depth=0 posts shows some empty fields, some text starting with

[{"voter":"bleepcoin","weight":462,"rshares":3874889785,"percent":100,"reputation":0,"time":"2019-02-13T15:19:00"} ......

and some starting with

[{"percent":1900,"reputation":"90169188750593","rshares":"91937688256","time":"2019-02-14T20:29:45","voter":"mammasitta","weight":9617},{"percent":3300,"reputation":"90455657914116","rshares ......

One for when I have a weekend spare :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oh, you have some weekend spare. You lucky boy! ;)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Perhaps I will try it if I ever decide to pay for the access again. Unlikely, but never say never ;)

0
0
0.000
avatar

How do I get on that list jk 😂😂😂😂

0
0
0.000
avatar

If you find out let me know! :P

0
0
0.000
avatar

Some of the people on this list and their content :(

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah, not great, but perhaps it was worse 6/7 months ago?

0
0
0.000
avatar

It was definitely worse. However, I don't like to think in the past. At some point in history all sorts of unsavory behaviors were acceptable.
Let's keep moving forward, it seems like the swamp still needs some draining.
In the meantime our progress is great.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm with you on all the above :)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

@burnpost, the SBD sink

Minor correction. @burnpost isn't a SBD sink. For one thing, SBD isn't currently being paid out as rewards, only STEEM. And if it were (as perhaps soon), @burnpost puts the SBD back on the internal market instead of burning it, and burns the STEEM instead.

In fact @burnpost is only a STEEM sink, not SBD.

@sbdpotato is the SBD sink. It is also on the list, but significantly smaller.

0
0
0.000
avatar

There we are curation in action. :) Naughty grin.

0
0
0.000
avatar

There is certainly some curation going on :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am not in the list. Rigged!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Apologies, I'll find a way next time - perhaps for the downvote list? :D

0
0
0.000
avatar

Now if we could get who on that list is only here to maximize their btc holdings, that would be great.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not @burnpost!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Lol, see, it's not sooo hard.

Have we had enough guff from those that only dump to btc and don't build their accounts, yet?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Very little trickle-down I guess its to be expected with the funnel being so small and to curate effectively takes real-time and commitment. You'd think the recipients of all this inflation would be keen to pass it on, but hardly any of them even curate, that so-called passing it on effect died at the first hurdle lol

0
0
0.000
avatar

It is by design, a long tail.

Large accounts like @ocdb and @curangel are notable in their absence. There is at least some trickle there.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't really like those upvotes going for burnposts, inflation is high, true, but at least it decentralizes the SP between more people decreasing the bad effect that the early mining had and making the blockchain truly decentralized, burning that inflation actually prevents the decentralization... but it's their stake after all, so I guess it's their choice, maybe it's a good thing, if those big accounts weren't burning the big amounts that we can see in those stats the price would probably go down by way too much...

Now you got to do one of these for downvotes 😅

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @abh12345!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.485 which ranks you at #174 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 87 contributions, your post is ranked at #1. Congratulations!

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • You've built up a nice network.
  • The readers appreciate your great work!
  • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

0
0
0.000
avatar

wow what a well detailed statistics,,good post from you...

Posted via Steemleo

0
0
0.000