Explain the parts where no IFC is being paid and the steep steady declines.
Do you not see how those averages should have been much higher ?
Topic: [ANN] Infinitecoin (IFC) pool-Treasurequarry.com. 1.5% fee. P2pool Europe server - page 12. (Read 54809 times)
August 21, 2013, 01:26:46 PM
I'm not worried about the one day averages because of the way the miners come and go with this site.
Explain the parts where no IFC is being paid and the steep steady declines.
Do you not see how those averages should have been much higher ?
Explain the parts where no IFC is being paid and the steep steady declines.
Do you not see how those averages should have been much higher ?
August 21, 2013, 10:13:43 AM
While some of the reward drops are explainable, the ones seen below are not.
Notice how the pool's hashrate is fairly constant.
TODAY'S VICTIMS.
1.29 mhash IS NOT 'DUST'.
960 khash RIPPED OFF !
910 khash PWN'D ! Stay tuned ! Let see how long it takes this one to recover.
Notice how the pool's hashrate is fairly constant.
TODAY'S VICTIMS.
1.29 mhash IS NOT 'DUST'.
960 khash RIPPED OFF !
910 khash PWN'D ! Stay tuned ! Let see how long it takes this one to recover.
Vicims?
orsimple math on your prove :
local rate: mean 101MH/s total payout 131072
1.29 mhash IS NOT 'DUST'.
1.29m / 101m = 0.01277 * 131072 = 1674 coins
but he got 2.12k 2120 coins <--- victim ??
446 more than expert 960 khash RIPPED OFF !
0.96m / 101m = 0.00950495 * 131072 = 1245 coins
he got 1.12k 1120 coins <---oh my god.......125 coins less = victim
910 khash PWN'D ! Stay tuned ! Let see how long it takes this one to recover.
0.91m / 101m = 0.0090099 * 131072 = 1180 coins
he got 1.07k 1070 coins <----oh ....scam ? victim !?
110coins less .......Actually, do you means address : iRG4LA with 1.29m earned more point than iGZzG 960k and iBubSS 910k ??
August 21, 2013, 08:55:30 AM
While some of the reward drops are explainable, the ones seen below are not.
Notice how the pool's hashrate is fairly constant.
TODAY'S VICTIMS.
1.29 mhash IS NOT 'DUST'.
960 khash RIPPED OFF !
910 khash PWN'D ! Stay tuned ! Let see how long it takes this one to recover.
Notice how the pool's hashrate is fairly constant.
TODAY'S VICTIMS.
1.29 mhash IS NOT 'DUST'.
960 khash RIPPED OFF !
910 khash PWN'D ! Stay tuned ! Let see how long it takes this one to recover.
August 20, 2013, 08:36:36 PM
I've compared the figures in the logs for "share difficulty" and the "Expected time to share" with the figures displayed on the stats page again tonight and they're still differing by about the same ratios.
The stats page when I checked was page showing a "Share difficulty" of 0.0617 whereas the log was showing difficulty of 0.621079 . Therefore the stats page is displaying a share difficulty of 1/10.066110 of the log's share difficulty.
For the "Expected time to share" the stats page was showing 0.0461 minutes whereas the share log was showing 27.3 seconds (0.455 minutes) . Therefore the stats page is displaying a share difficulty of 1/9.869848 of the log's share difficulty.
I'm still waiting for an answer to this problem from the thread I mentioned in my previous post. Meanwhile if you're looking at the stats page, just multiply the "Share difficulty" and the "Expected time to share" by 10 and you should be about right. Apologies meanwhile for any confusion this may cause.
(At 350 kh/s and a share difficulty of around 0.6 which, based on the logs being right, we would have had during today, it would take just under 2 hours on average between finding shares, so based on your experience sololoop, I think we're on the right track in assuming the logs are showing the right share difficulty
).
The stats page when I checked was page showing a "Share difficulty" of 0.0617 whereas the log was showing difficulty of 0.621079 . Therefore the stats page is displaying a share difficulty of 1/10.066110 of the log's share difficulty.
For the "Expected time to share" the stats page was showing 0.0461 minutes whereas the share log was showing 27.3 seconds (0.455 minutes) . Therefore the stats page is displaying a share difficulty of 1/9.869848 of the log's share difficulty.
I'm still waiting for an answer to this problem from the thread I mentioned in my previous post. Meanwhile if you're looking at the stats page, just multiply the "Share difficulty" and the "Expected time to share" by 10 and you should be about right. Apologies meanwhile for any confusion this may cause.
(At 350 kh/s and a share difficulty of around 0.6 which, based on the logs being right, we would have had during today, it would take just under 2 hours on average between finding shares, so based on your experience sololoop, I think we're on the right track in assuming the logs are showing the right share difficulty
). August 20, 2013, 09:00:02 AM
Pleased to help, c1010010.
sololoop, thanks for pointing this out - you're right, the pool difficulty isn't showing correctly on the stats page. Both the pool difficulty and the time to share are underreporting by a factor of about 10 on the stats page but P2Pool's logs show higher difficulty.
At the moment, for example, the logs show Share difficulty: 0.516141 whereas the share difficulty shown on the stats page is 0.0513.
Similarly the logs show Expected time to share: 27.3 seconds (equivalent to 0.455 minutes) whereas the stats page shows 0.0459 minutes.
The logs seem to be correct and the pool seems to be behaving in accordance with the logs. No idea at the moment why the stats page is showing the incorrect figures.
A similar situation has also been reported by another p2pool user at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2961120 .
I'll post a message in that thread and see tomorrow if the ratios remain the same.
sololoop, thanks for pointing this out - you're right, the pool difficulty isn't showing correctly on the stats page. Both the pool difficulty and the time to share are underreporting by a factor of about 10 on the stats page but P2Pool's logs show higher difficulty.
At the moment, for example, the logs show Share difficulty: 0.516141 whereas the share difficulty shown on the stats page is 0.0513.
Similarly the logs show Expected time to share: 27.3 seconds (equivalent to 0.455 minutes) whereas the stats page shows 0.0459 minutes.
The logs seem to be correct and the pool seems to be behaving in accordance with the logs. No idea at the moment why the stats page is showing the incorrect figures.
A similar situation has also been reported by another p2pool user at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2961120 .
I'll post a message in that thread and see tomorrow if the ratios remain the same.
thanks for clarify. It is exactly what you said.
Tested on 350k miner today, cost it 2 hours to get a real shares
. Once the address in, the miner got its deserved reward.
August 20, 2013, 08:00:21 AM
Damn, I wanted to sell some IFC on eBay, and I wrote "InfiniteCoin - not BitCoin" to make clear what it is. eBay got somehow crazy now. They erased my offer because it´s "Abue of Trademarks". So BitCoin is a Trademark now on ebay... Really crazy gus, but never mind.
What I wanted to say: Some hours ago IFC went time 18 (from 5 to 90)! But now dropped back to 8. (on Coins-E).
What I wanted to say: Some hours ago IFC went time 18 (from 5 to 90)! But now dropped back to 8. (on Coins-E).
probably ebay has no ideal how to handle hundred million / billion
amount...that's why your offer being erased August 20, 2013, 07:21:40 AM
Damn, I wanted to sell some IFC on eBay, and I wrote "InfiniteCoin - not BitCoin" to make clear what it is. eBay got somehow crazy now. They erased my offer because it´s "Abue of Trademarks". So BitCoin is a Trademark now on ebay... Really crazy gus, but never mind.
What I wanted to say: Some hours ago IFC went time 18 (from 5 to 90)! But now dropped back to 8. (on Coins-E).
What I wanted to say: Some hours ago IFC went time 18 (from 5 to 90)! But now dropped back to 8. (on Coins-E).
August 19, 2013, 09:41:45 PM
Pleased to help, c1010010.
sololoop, thanks for pointing this out - you're right, the pool difficulty isn't showing correctly on the stats page. Both the pool difficulty and the time to share are underreporting by a factor of about 10 on the stats page but P2Pool's logs show higher difficulty.
At the moment, for example, the logs show Share difficulty: 0.516141 whereas the share difficulty shown on the stats page is 0.0513.
Similarly the logs show Expected time to share: 27.3 seconds (equivalent to 0.455 minutes) whereas the stats page shows 0.0459 minutes.
The logs seem to be correct and the pool seems to be behaving in accordance with the logs. No idea at the moment why the stats page is showing the incorrect figures.
A similar situation has also been reported by another p2pool user at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2961120 .
I'll post a message in that thread and see tomorrow if the ratios remain the same.
sololoop, thanks for pointing this out - you're right, the pool difficulty isn't showing correctly on the stats page. Both the pool difficulty and the time to share are underreporting by a factor of about 10 on the stats page but P2Pool's logs show higher difficulty.
At the moment, for example, the logs show Share difficulty: 0.516141 whereas the share difficulty shown on the stats page is 0.0513.
Similarly the logs show Expected time to share: 27.3 seconds (equivalent to 0.455 minutes) whereas the stats page shows 0.0459 minutes.
The logs seem to be correct and the pool seems to be behaving in accordance with the logs. No idea at the moment why the stats page is showing the incorrect figures.
A similar situation has also been reported by another p2pool user at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2961120 .
I'll post a message in that thread and see tomorrow if the ratios remain the same.
August 19, 2013, 08:44:33 PM
Hope this helps
It absolutely does. I kinda feel stupid about not noticing the pool hashrate - but I guess I have a stupidity-clause because I was zoomed in too far to notice it. I see it now.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
August 19, 2013, 08:21:21 PM
Moving forward and trying to help.
c1010010 can you give me your IFC address so that I can look at things for you about your reduced payments. If things are not right we may need to rollback to the previous version but I'd like to avoid that if possible so I'd like to see what's happening with you.
sololoop, what timezone is your miner displaying? I want to check the logs for the same time.
c1010010 can you give me your IFC address so that I can look at things for you about your reduced payments. If things are not right we may need to rollback to the previous version but I'd like to avoid that if possible so I'd like to see what's happening with you.
sololoop, what timezone is your miner displaying? I want to check the logs for the same time.
my timezone is UTC/GMT +8 hours
Actually, the reward for mining (3days) on Treasure is reasonable. My IFC coins payment is fine with capricious network diff. (1.2 raise to 8.2 within hour and drop back to 2.4 on next hour).
But there is one thing i am confused, the pool diff.(displayed on Treasure's stats page) seem not working/broken?
For the low hashrate miner, it is doubtful whether his miner is mining correctly.
For example : my previous 350k miner get a share above pool diff. , i suppose this address will enter the payout list but no... until the miner got a block then the address in.
August 19, 2013, 07:14:13 PM
Aha, I see what you mean. The reason for the drop in your expected payout is that although your own hashrate has remained steady at around the 8 mh/s, the total hashrate of the pool has increased.
I've copied a graph of the pool's total hashrate (local rate) covering the periods you've mentioned below, with the same (or thereabouts... as close as I could estimate) point A and point B.
The calculations below are very rough and don't fully take into consideration the nature of p2pool's PPLNS system which is very dynamic, but they'll give an idea of the reason for the drop in your expected payout per block...
Point A on the local rate graph is around a third up between 0 and 50 Mh/s....lets call it 17 mh's. At that point you were hashing along at your 8 mh/s compared to the pool's total 17 mh/s. Assuming an average luck of finding shares, that would mean that your expected payout for a block found would be around 8/17*131072 (ie your hashrate divided by the total pool's hashrate multiplied by the block value). This equals 61680 (close to what is showing on your graph's point A....bear in mind there seems to have been a period before point A that you were hashing at about 5mh/s which may have caused a bit of a hangover effect on point A which is why your actual expected payout figure is showing as more like 50000 at point A).
Point B on the local rate graph is about two-thirds between 50 and 100mh/s. Let's call this 83 mh/s. At that point you were still hashing along at your 8 mh/s but now compared to the pool's total 83 mh/s. Assuming an average luck of finding shares, that would mean that your expected payout for a block found would be around 8/83*131072 (ie your hashrate divided by the total pool's hashrate multiplied by the block value). This equals 12633 (close to what is showing on your graph's point B).
Now that the whole pool is hashing along faster, then assuming the total global Infinitecoin network's difficulty remained the same, the pool would find blocks faster, resulting in you getting smaller payouts at a faster rate and no major change in your total payouts over time......However, the total global Infinitecoin network's difficulty has also increased. The difficulty at 23:57 on 13aug (around the time of point A) was 1.756 (block 197153) whereas the difficulty at 23:48 on 18 august was 4.437 (block 212399)...reducing to a difficulty of 1.956 at 23:49 on 18 august which was still above the 1.756 of 13th August's block 198306. As a result your actual payouts over a period of time would be less.
Hope this helps
I've copied a graph of the pool's total hashrate (local rate) covering the periods you've mentioned below, with the same (or thereabouts... as close as I could estimate) point A and point B.
The calculations below are very rough and don't fully take into consideration the nature of p2pool's PPLNS system which is very dynamic, but they'll give an idea of the reason for the drop in your expected payout per block...
Point A on the local rate graph is around a third up between 0 and 50 Mh/s....lets call it 17 mh's. At that point you were hashing along at your 8 mh/s compared to the pool's total 17 mh/s. Assuming an average luck of finding shares, that would mean that your expected payout for a block found would be around 8/17*131072 (ie your hashrate divided by the total pool's hashrate multiplied by the block value). This equals 61680 (close to what is showing on your graph's point A....bear in mind there seems to have been a period before point A that you were hashing at about 5mh/s which may have caused a bit of a hangover effect on point A which is why your actual expected payout figure is showing as more like 50000 at point A).
Point B on the local rate graph is about two-thirds between 50 and 100mh/s. Let's call this 83 mh/s. At that point you were still hashing along at your 8 mh/s but now compared to the pool's total 83 mh/s. Assuming an average luck of finding shares, that would mean that your expected payout for a block found would be around 8/83*131072 (ie your hashrate divided by the total pool's hashrate multiplied by the block value). This equals 12633 (close to what is showing on your graph's point B).
Now that the whole pool is hashing along faster, then assuming the total global Infinitecoin network's difficulty remained the same, the pool would find blocks faster, resulting in you getting smaller payouts at a faster rate and no major change in your total payouts over time......However, the total global Infinitecoin network's difficulty has also increased. The difficulty at 23:57 on 13aug (around the time of point A) was 1.756 (block 197153) whereas the difficulty at 23:48 on 18 august was 4.437 (block 212399)...reducing to a difficulty of 1.956 at 23:49 on 18 august which was still above the 1.756 of 13th August's block 198306. As a result your actual payouts over a period of time would be less.
Hope this helps
August 19, 2013, 03:49:48 PM
Sure. Thanks.
i6CBtPTBEKCAhXiDWr3zmiDSQWUfwMrquA
I pulled all the rigs off for a while - testing out a pool for shits-n-giggles. If you need them online for any reason, I'm happy to move them back for live tests.
The oddity that I'm seeding is shown below.
My rigs are pretty consistent. I am generally a solid 8-10Mh/s with those 16 cards, but I have been having a rig acting up so there is a definite possibility that the average hashrate over the past week is closer to 7.5Mh/s.
What I saw was that when running full force, you see an average payout at point-a. But, afterwards, point-b shows a drastically different number.
I'm not sure if it is me, you, or the phases of the moon.
If you could help explain that, I would very much appreciate it.
i6CBtPTBEKCAhXiDWr3zmiDSQWUfwMrquA
I pulled all the rigs off for a while - testing out a pool for shits-n-giggles. If you need them online for any reason, I'm happy to move them back for live tests.
The oddity that I'm seeding is shown below.
My rigs are pretty consistent. I am generally a solid 8-10Mh/s with those 16 cards, but I have been having a rig acting up so there is a definite possibility that the average hashrate over the past week is closer to 7.5Mh/s.
What I saw was that when running full force, you see an average payout at point-a. But, afterwards, point-b shows a drastically different number.
I'm not sure if it is me, you, or the phases of the moon.
If you could help explain that, I would very much appreciate it.
August 19, 2013, 02:12:01 PM
Moving forward and trying to help.
c1010010 can you give me your IFC address so that I can look at things for you about your reduced payments. If things are not right we may need to rollback to the previous version but I'd like to avoid that if possible so I'd like to see what's happening with you.
sololoop, what timezone is your miner displaying? I want to check the logs for the same time.
c1010010 can you give me your IFC address so that I can look at things for you about your reduced payments. If things are not right we may need to rollback to the previous version but I'd like to avoid that if possible so I'd like to see what's happening with you.
sololoop, what timezone is your miner displaying? I want to check the logs for the same time.
August 19, 2013, 01:22:16 PM
If "the graphs say it all", here's proof that this is standard p2pool behaviour. Certainly not a scam.
These are from 2 separate sites:
Firstly from http://ask.gxsnmp.org:9332/static/graphs.html?Month
Long gaps here.
Secondly from http://p2pool.org:9377/static/graphs.html?Day
More long gaps
Regarding blocks 196495 and 196471, if you don't believe that they were orphaned, ask jtobey (creator of the abe block explorer software) what is indicated by the block explorer for those blocks.
P2Pool is complex and often confusing but I can assure you that the standard p2pool software has been used on TreaureQuarry throughout. I have virtually no control over what it does. The only things I've added are appropriate settings to get it to work with Infinitecoin. For those who may know about p2pool, these settings are in networks.py and /bitcoin/networks.py . There was also an addition to helper.py that used to be required in the version of the pool software that I was using before last night.
Until last night the p2pool software I was using was the software from https://github.com/narken/p2pool-altcoins . At the time of setting up the pool in June, this was identical (apart from settings for additional coins in networks.py and /bitcoin/networks.py and helper.py) to the standard official p2pool software from https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool
I updated to the latest p2pool software from https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool last night. In fact I did 2 upgrades - on Saturday I had noticed that there was a new official p2pool version available so had downloaded that in readiness to upgrade. I then upgraded to this on Sunday before then noticing that another new version had been released on Sunday. The second upgrade was done an hour later last night. Apparently the version that I had downloaded on Saturday and was running on the server for about an hour on Sunday did have some bugs. Whether this latest version contains any bugs I don't know. I'm not knowledgeable in python and wouldn't know how to check, or certainly not modify the code. I hope there are no bugs although it currently looks like the "Expected time to share" is showing a bit of a low value currently.
Mining here is your choice. There are no guarantees on anything because, as I have stated, I have virtually no control over what the software does.
These are from 2 separate sites:
Firstly from http://ask.gxsnmp.org:9332/static/graphs.html?Month
Long gaps here.
Secondly from http://p2pool.org:9377/static/graphs.html?Day
More long gaps
Regarding blocks 196495 and 196471, if you don't believe that they were orphaned, ask jtobey (creator of the abe block explorer software) what is indicated by the block explorer for those blocks.
P2Pool is complex and often confusing but I can assure you that the standard p2pool software has been used on TreaureQuarry throughout. I have virtually no control over what it does. The only things I've added are appropriate settings to get it to work with Infinitecoin. For those who may know about p2pool, these settings are in networks.py and /bitcoin/networks.py . There was also an addition to helper.py that used to be required in the version of the pool software that I was using before last night.
Until last night the p2pool software I was using was the software from https://github.com/narken/p2pool-altcoins . At the time of setting up the pool in June, this was identical (apart from settings for additional coins in networks.py and /bitcoin/networks.py and helper.py) to the standard official p2pool software from https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool
I updated to the latest p2pool software from https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool last night. In fact I did 2 upgrades - on Saturday I had noticed that there was a new official p2pool version available so had downloaded that in readiness to upgrade. I then upgraded to this on Sunday before then noticing that another new version had been released on Sunday. The second upgrade was done an hour later last night. Apparently the version that I had downloaded on Saturday and was running on the server for about an hour on Sunday did have some bugs. Whether this latest version contains any bugs I don't know. I'm not knowledgeable in python and wouldn't know how to check, or certainly not modify the code. I hope there are no bugs although it currently looks like the "Expected time to share" is showing a bit of a low value currently.
Mining here is your choice. There are no guarantees on anything because, as I have stated, I have virtually no control over what the software does.
August 19, 2013, 08:05:23 AM
This is not being paranoid.
This is the truth.
The graphs say it all. Here are some of today's victims.
I used to think that the sharp declines were caused by the default addy. This guy was nearing zero even before the main drop at 9pm.
Good to see it didn't take this one long to quit.
There are more.
@ Treasureseeker The miners deserve some answers !
This is the truth.
The graphs say it all. Here are some of today's victims.
I used to think that the sharp declines were caused by the default addy. This guy was nearing zero even before the main drop at 9pm.
Good to see it didn't take this one long to quit.
There are more.
@ Treasureseeker The miners deserve some answers !
August 19, 2013, 07:27:38 AM
I really can't follow the craziness above.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
The simple explanation is... we have been SCAMMED.
While I do have to admit that your conclusion is a POSSIBILITY, I don't think it is probable. Here's why.
I've been with this, and other PPLNS P2P pools for some time. The gradual ramp up behavior is very common.. It does not surprise me at all.
Now, something does appear to have changed... The results with identical input is different. There was some discussion about pool changes, and, to me at least, it seems something is not right.
I would like to get some explanation from the pool OPs, so I can understand what is going on and to either correct the issue, or reset expectations, or make an informed decision and get out of the pool myself.
That brings up my final point... You. You appear to be paranoid. (It still is called paranoia even when they ARE watching you for real, right
. My suggestion would be that you take your own advice and move to a different pool just to be safe. There are only a few options then:1). You are right, and the move made your results better, safer, more predictable.
2). You are wrong, and you moved without any reason. No real loss there, you just tried something new.
So, pool OPs, any comment or explanation you can share?
August 19, 2013, 06:53:31 AM
@Hippie Tech:
I fully get your point, and I agree to you that something appears somehow strange with how the payments come off. But we should be fair. Honestly, I don´t feel that anybody is scamming here; maybe it´s kind of bug in the pool´s software or it´s like TreasureSeeker said: In the long run it will be just. As I am not an expert, I can not know more. For myself it looks somehow fine: I don´t get any amount for days, then I get some quite big numbers of coins for a short period. Take a look at iNY....QF1 at full track: 2.93 GH. For that I ceceived until now 115893 IFC which looks about reasonable for me. Like many here I also wonder how the payments are exactly calculated - I have no clue.
Anyways, like in real life we should not say:"This is scam", because it´s not proven. There is no point in stating something we just think of as a fact. Other people may read it and take it for proven.
Better say"I think it is scam because...".
That´s my 2 IFC on this. Thanks.
I fully get your point, and I agree to you that something appears somehow strange with how the payments come off. But we should be fair. Honestly, I don´t feel that anybody is scamming here; maybe it´s kind of bug in the pool´s software or it´s like TreasureSeeker said: In the long run it will be just. As I am not an expert, I can not know more. For myself it looks somehow fine: I don´t get any amount for days, then I get some quite big numbers of coins for a short period. Take a look at iNY....QF1 at full track: 2.93 GH. For that I ceceived until now 115893 IFC which looks about reasonable for me. Like many here I also wonder how the payments are exactly calculated - I have no clue.
Anyways, like in real life we should not say:"This is scam", because it´s not proven. There is no point in stating something we just think of as a fact. Other people may read it and take it for proven.
Better say"I think it is scam because...".
That´s my 2 IFC on this. Thanks.
August 19, 2013, 05:51:03 AM
I really can't follow the craziness above.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
The simple explanation is... we have been SCAMMED.
August 19, 2013, 12:08:57 AM
I really can't follow the craziness above.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
i am not going to explanation why the average payout dropping. should i ?
i am listing out the problem i found.It is curious why Treasure is different from other P2Pool PPLNS system.
As every PPLNS have their pool diff. for payment target. But pool diff. for Treasure seem broken.
August 19, 2013, 12:00:21 AM
I really can't follow the craziness above.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
Is there a simple explanation for the average payout dropping so far? It looks to be about 30% of what I was seeing the other... and it appears to be declining.
Thanks.
Jump to: