Proposal to fix the problem of negative raw influence on some users

Hello, since September first there are people who have not received rewards, and this is because the protocol prevents people with negative raw influence from receiving rewards when curating the web.

I understand the reasons why the protocol takes this measure, however it greatly affects people who have a very high voting value.

This is why I have some proposals so people with high voting value don’t end affected in a negative way.

I propose that, just as before September first, people with negative raw influence receive rewards again, since there are people who have had the influence this way for months and received rewards until September first. Other proposals I have to avoid this problem are:

  • Implement an algorithm in the protocol that prevents lowering the activity if you have a high voting value, keep the tokens for a long time and/or have very high influence.

  • Another algorithm that pevents to low the activity if you are the only one who curate an element.

And this is because I noticed that the activity is the subtraction of the amount of your total vote value minus your total claimed rewards.

Thank you, and I hope you to consider these proposals, since several people are affected by curating content that we like and/or holding the token for a long time, which is not fair.



There isn’t better way to say it Gaby. Agree with you in every point of the proposal… Hope the team reconsidere it and fix it…

Curate to earn… but if we curate having a - influence we don’t earn…


I agree with you Gaby.

It would be good to have an answer from the team ASAP, because if holding YUP hurts your influence in the long term, it is not worth keeping the tokens and it would be better to sell them, at least for the users with the biggest accounts.


Me parece bien la propuesta. Esperemos que el equipo de yup tometomen en cuenta


I think your proposal is excellent Gaby.

There are many points that need to be clarified so that the community is aware, mainly that, the negative influence as positive, the motto was to cure on the internet what you like, it seems good or bad. But it can no longer be done because if no one votes what I vote, it will lose influence, from 1400 that I had 5 days ago I have it in 462.

The people who already have negative influence, what are they going to do? if they vote, they don’t gain anything.

I am sure that the Yup team will take action on the matter.


Hey Gaby, appreciate your thoughtfulness in addressing this issue. First just wanted to say we’re taking making changes to the influence function very seriously, and some of these ideas are exactly what we’re working and talking about internally.

For instance, regarding the first idea in your first bullet point, we plan on increasing the weight that token age (YUP holdings over time) has on influence relative to activity, allowing people to offset their negative activity by holding YUP. We see this as a good mechanism for users to use when activity is low, and a great incentive for holding the token in general.

Regarding your second point, we have discussed putting a cap on voting value or having diminishing marginal increases to vote value, so it’s not as hard for people with high influence to stay influential.

Your second bullet point is a very interesting idea that I’ve just brought to my team. I think it effectively allows people to be less selective with their ratings, which is good, but also may pose some problems with sybil resistance. This also touches on something we’re working on: making the activity function less punitive, and I think this is a great way to go about doing it.

Lastly, regarding the idea that we made some change to the way negative influence works that is newly affecting people that have it is not the case or our intention. If there are people who you believe that this is true for please contact us and we’ll look into it.

The accounts with negative influence that I’ve looked into have received rewards since September 1st. The discrepancy in rewards from September 1st is due to the changes we made to the claim function, which resulted in many users receiving rewards from previous periods.


I am not 100% sure but I think this may have happened to me. Because I literally use this app everyday and the content that I like is very popular with support from other voters. I stopped receiving rewards actually September 2nd after all this time of using the dapp this has never happened to me. So I also support the posters proposal.


As an affected user I think that if an important change like this is made it should be in the documents, I know that these changes were commented in the discord but it easily goes unnoticed the opposite of having this information in the documents.

The other thing I feel affected by what I think was to make HOLD of the YUP and that increased my influence along with the vote value, I a person who is dedicated to vote NFT that I like no matter how many votes they have I see now punished without receiving rewards for not having understood these changes and I criticize that if they are going to lower the influence of positive to negative such influence should be seen in the extension or instead of having the number 99 go down to be clear that I’m doing something wrong considering the operation of the protocol.

For example I have voted many NFT that nobody votes and I believe that not receiving a reward is enough punishment for one to lose influence by not voting quality content or what would be in practice popular content, because currently popular content is voted.

It is good that they are looking for a way to avoid the abuse of the protocol but that I am affected by not voting what the majority vote that are popular accounts does not make sense.

The protocol should recognize when a user votes first and nobody votes for him, to when a user votes last behind a user or many users, because I think what you want to avoid is that someone with a high value vote always votes behind 20-100 people and thus generate a lot of YUP with his vote.

Currently I have nothing more to contribute than my opinion of how I currently feel after so much time curating content to be being punished without rewards.

I hope the team will soon find a solution where those who are really abusing the protocol will be punished and those of us who use the protocol to curate content we like will be rewarded if someone else votes after us as the docs say.


From what I’m reading in the comments, this problem affects users who have been supporting the protocol since its inception, or at least for many months.

This post is the most voted post since this forum was opened, which denotes the community’s concern about this issue.

Not reason enough to revert the protocol to the state it was in before they had these problems?

Wouldn’t it be logical to implement all these changes once you have had the time to test that they work?

I don’t think it’s fair that all these users don’t get rewarded fr their work until you find a solution to this.


it is incredible how these recent changes in influence have affected many people, including myself, and I can tell you that a friend of mine has just started not even 2 weeks ago and he already has negative influence and because of what I have told him that those who have negative influence will not be rewarded for the time they have dedicated and continue to dedicate to it, and we both think that this is unfair, as does a cousin of his.

Translated with DeepL Translate: The world's most accurate translator (free version)


They team should fix those changes… For real.


I have the hope their team fix the problem


I’m agree to you Gaby.


Hey @pakocampo, @javierleon, @Samsung1108 Just to clear things up, we haven’t made any changes to the influence function in several months - negative influence has been a feature of the protocol for a long time. Therefore there is no protocol state we can revert back to, we can only update it which is what we plan on doing.

We’re looking to make the update as soon as Friday of this week

1 Like

I don’t question at any time that changes have been made to the influence function. But from what the community says, people with negative influence have stopped receiving rewards. Therefore some change has been made in some function of the protocol. Can’t that change be reverted?


as they say they have not made any changes, if from the 1st of this month. Those who had negative influence no longer receive rewards, but there are users who had negative influence 5 months ago and still received rewards.
That’s why we see the difference between before and after the 1st.


I agree with this. I have been using this dapp for about a year. Not receiving rewards is enough incentive to vote better.

1 Like

The high influencer is more risk than low influencer to curating new post, so the influence can be distributed equally and newly after 24 hours to every user.

I agree with you gaby!