Time to share my ListNerds/CTP Weekly Report. In this report, I want to briefly share how I accomplished the goal I set last week, my observation on the response of the community to my emails, my CTP growth, and my thoughts on the recent update concerning the change in vote value on ListNerds.
Reaching the 500 Goal
In my post 8 days ago, I anticipated that if the type of growth rate I had would continue, it would only require a week for me to reach 500 LISTNERDS. Such anticipation is proven correct. From 360.586 last week, today my staked LISTNERDS increased 44.92% to 522.589.
Such an increase is made possible due to the daily airdrop I received plus the LISTNERDS earnings from my verified email.
Interesting Development in Community Response
The last email I sent is about the political and social consequences of bureaucratic management. Its title is Bureau-Crazy. This email earned 102.602 LISTNERDS.
Analyzing the development of the community response to the emails I have been sending, I observed that the first five emails followed a more predictable pattern. However, as for my sixth email, the response of the community to my article, An Old Book for Freedom Lovers is surprising. The CTR is 100%.
Another change took place in my seventh email. This time the number of emails sent decreased as well as the CTR, but the overall result is still very promising.
CTP
I also mentioned the limitation of my voting ability due to a small number of staked CTPs. Eight days ago, I had 1,677 CTPs staked on listnerds.com. Now, my CTP increased to 2,184.382. Though my staked CTP went up by 30.25%, still this is very far from the intended 5,000 goal. I still experienced a shortage of votes in upvoting emails. I have no other choice but to distribute my votes equally among the members of the ListNerds community. I think a month more to go and I will attain that ideal quantity of staked CTP for me to have more space in upvoting emails.
Change in the Voting Process
Yesterday, @jongolson published an article about the change in vote value on ListNerds. I made a comment that though I didn’t fully understand the implications of such a change, my initial response is one of excitement, and I think my reaction is not at all baseless for one can observe a big change in your voting score just a day after the change was implemented.
It is understandable that those who have small stakes after seeing the reduction in their vote value raise some concerns. However, a closer analysis will show that the adjustment is fair and just considering the size of someone’s stakes.
Which one is fairer? For everyone to have equal voting power regardless of the size of the stakes? Or the voting value is dependent on the size of the stakes? As for me, the latter incentivizes staking and commitment to the platform. In a way, the growth of the platform is being rightfully placed in the hands of the big stakers who have demonstrated commitment by doing their best for the platform to succeed for doing so is consistent with their own best interest. I think that is the reason why they are up there.
Another concern is the fear that this change will create a scenario where the gap will increase between the low stakers and the high stakers. I agree that it is only appropriate for big stakers to have more influence in the voting process. It is also true that the big stakers can benefit from their votes, but on further thought, you will see that they are actually giving more to the members of the community in terms of vote value than what they will receive. Of course, the condition there is that such members will deliver quality content. Meeting such a condition, it is actually the small stakers that will benefit from this change. Taking this into consideration, the focus of both small stakers and newcomers should be on adding value to the community and not be worried about the top stakers not giving fat votes to their content.
Still another issue is the concern that those with small votes will be discouraged to engage fearing that their emails will not be verified due to the lack of votes or downvotes from the top stakers. Again, if such a small voter is providing value to the community, I think there is nothing to be worried about.
As a small staker, I keep reminding myself that my growth is dependent on the platform’s incentive mechanism, my account level, quality content, engagement, and the response of the ListNerds community. Since not everybody will meet the mentioned criteria, it is natural to have diversity in results. The important thing is that though, at different levels, anyone who satisfies such requirements to some degree will experience growth after some time.