Why are innacurate* and 80 views only blog posts such as this (
https://steemit.com/paypie/@simonjones/paypie-the-future-of-credit-risk-assessment) ranked above average and receive 500 PPP? I read the whole whitepaper, studied how decentralized credit risk assessment works and how a decentralized accounting platform could generate value altogether, along with other opportunities that derive. My blog post was organized and had insightful views, credible and real-life examples to elucidate the power of PayPie platform. You cna check it here (
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@jvper/what-you-need-to-know-about-paypie-s-whitepaper). Besides, around 20% more views (most of the audience is people who are not necessarily steem-powered steemit users and therefore cannot upvote, but anyway they can read). Why should I deserve 80% lower payment? This is ultrageous. I put hard work on it. I even draw images to show in clearer ways my examples on how PayPie may be valuable, and somehow it is rated worse than semicopy-paste articles with little effort and lower audience. No offense intended to author simonjones, since his article is good, but I don't understand PayPie's criteria. It should definitely be reviewed.
*I say the article is innacurate because saying that "businesses can rest assured that their [accounting] data is 100% accurate" by using PayPie is not accurate. Most readers don't get it. The writer should provide an explanation to how PayPie can generate such accuracy and in what circumstances. Just copy-pasting sound sentences do not generate a good reaction on the readers and won't prompt them to participate of the ICO. For instance, the example I wrote makes it evident to the reader how PayPie can bring 100% accuracy in a transaction in opposition to current days centralized ledgers.
