Hi @xpilar,
A fairly complete report, thank you for taking the time to share all this information with us.
I would like to remind you of something, you mention that booming accounts work with communities, but this stopped being so a few months ago and now they are working like small steemcurator accounts. This is why you see some discord in the number of votes distributed by communities, and by authors, usually these authors who have received many votes from Booming is because they publish many times in steem atlas and speak on steem, projects that generally have the support of Booming
Without a doubt, many authors publish repeatedly in the day, trying to get the greatest possible reward, curiously, the lower price of the STEEM generates the opposite effect, instead of reducing the publications, increases them, but from the same users, trying to match the rewards they obtained before.
Cheers!
Hi @alejos7ven,
Thank you. This is actually a very important clarification.
My understanding during the analysis was that Booming was still operating through community nominations. If that system was changed a few months ago and the Booming accounts are now operating more like smaller Steem Curator accounts, then part of my interpretation of the community data needs to be corrected.
The blockchain numbers themselves would remain the same — the votes, authors and communities are still what the data shows — but the explanation for why those votes were distributed that way could be different.
Your point about Steem Atlas and Speak on Steem is particularly interesting. It may explain some of the repeated Booming support I found, and I would like to investigate that further.
If you have a link to the announcement or guidelines explaining when and how the Booming system changed, please send it to me. I would like to verify it and, if necessary, add a correction/update to the report.
Your observation about the STEEM price is also interesting. A lower STEEM price potentially leading some existing users to publish more in an attempt to maintain their previous reward level would be worth testing with blockchain data over a longer period.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is exactly the kind of discussion I hoped the report would generate.