the rule for those who arrive on an equal footing


We know it well: however positive your game may be, you could still lose on penalties. And so it will be for many participants in the Super Cashback who will not be able to be among the lucky 100,000 despite having the same number of transactions as the last qualified. The regulation, in fact, provides from the outset what would be the discriminating factor for the equal merit and within a few days it will be applied ruthlessly.

Cashback: the rule of equal merit

Data analysis suggests one very strong concentration of users around the 100 thousand position: it was a natural thickening due to the competition of the last days of the competition, a period in which there was a strong skimming with an upward compression of the values ​​in the ranking. The result is that with only 4 transactions of difference you can climb up to 4000 positions, which means that for every transaction more or less the payout of the Super Cashback it moves between different clusters of participants. Based on where the threshold will stop (temporarily at 790, pending any updates today) it will be established which will be the approximately 1000 participants who would theoretically be entitled to the prize as last in the standings.

However, the regulation is clear and therefore even for these 1000 who will have achieved the transactions useful for the final victory it will be necessary to establish a ranking to decide who will really be entitled and who will not. The regulation intends to reward those who have not reached the quota following a forced final rush, therefore the discrimination is indicated as follows:

If the number of valid transactions is equal at the end of each period, priority will be given to whoever made the last valid transaction before the other participants.

The winner will be whoever closed their last transaction first. There will be no controversy on this point, in short, because “letter sings“. Surely the many who are cut off from this rule will have many regrets, both against themselves and against the “crafty ones” who have managed to get their transactions approved. Nothing is known about it and it is not clear how many and which transactions can be deleted, rewriting the ranking until new deserving users are included.

On the days when the consolidation of the ranking is progressing, this certainty remains: in the event of a tie, the one who has avoided transactions in the very last hours of the competition with greater clarity will have won. Because you know: in a lottery of penalties, even coldness counts.


Categories:   Digital Economy

Tags:  , , ,

Comments