RE: Whitepaper Discussion on Voting Abuse
I don't see any problem with self-voting. I see even some of the biggest critics have come around to this idea. Indeed, very obviously, it's an important driver for Steem Power demand. If this network were to thrive, advertisers would throw in millions to get their posts up top. Neither do I see an issue with linear rewards. Where I do have an issue, though, is the current vote power reserve rate. A target of 10 votes per day is simply not enough, and an overwhelming deterrent for curators to significantly downscale or indefinitely halt curation activities. It's forced me and several other engaged curators to give up on active curation. It also encourages people to save voting power while voting on others, so they can vote for themselves with the precious 100% strength vote.
Anyway, all of this has been discussed time and time again, before and after the hardfork 19.
When I first joined here, I suggested downvote rewards. Fighting abuse is an important function that should be incentivized - particularly if the same post is then downvoted by others. Yes, I'm aware there's revenge downvoting or spiteful downvoting, but I see that as no different from self-upvoting. Besides, they would continue downvoting irrespective of anything. There's also the issue that the most abusive posts will be downvoted to $0; so where's the rewards generated then? Just a thought experiment. Either way, there should be some incentive for people to form abuse fighting groups.
Communities will solve a lot of issues, but there's still the un-communitied posts and comments that are open to rampant self-voting.
I understand you say: we only have 10 votes/day, but with the vote slider at 25%, we have 40 votes per day. Yes ok, we can use the 100% on ourself and a (much) smaller on others, but your statement you stopped active curation because of only having 10 votes a day, I don't really understand since you could continue active curation with the vote slider at 25%.
Incentives to downvotes: Absolutely agree, it needs to be implemented in a way that tools are available for abusive downvoters to get penalised. Account not posting and commenting can currently not be penalised. Maybe we shall think of the ability to vote at account level as well, creating a way to also penalised abusers at account level.
The whole "drop voting slider to 25% and it'll be all the same" doesn't work for me at all. I tried it for 2 months and failed at it miserably. Few reasons -
So, after over 2 months of fighting he system, I have embraced it. Now I just go through a small fraction of the posts I used to go through and call it a day. That's what the system wants you to do, so I shall.
Gee, if only someone had pointed this out ahead of time.
I understand you points, and I see the benefit in active curation by a larger amount of Steemians. The down side of all of this is lower distribution of votes. I still try to give 25% votes to others on posts and comments generally a little less and use up my 20% for the day. But I must say, with other dynamics in our community, I dont look at the normal channels anymore, and use alternative ways to read posts, essentially a list of my favourite authors, and from time to time I go through the NEW channel, but even my own HOME channel I hardly look at anymore. A shame for all those who publish good posts since it is more difficult for them to trigger me to read their posts and get a vote from me. I wish we would have a different system, in which the content I really like gets to channels I actively like to look at . I used Esteem Life app for some time, and have some channels setup to discover interesting posts from authors I do not follow. However, that App is a bit too buggy for me to really like it for daily use. But that said, such functionalities should have been part of our prime interfaces to the Steem blockchain.
Because of the slider bar you have AS MANY votes as you want. I don't see why people keep thinking they only have 10 votes.....
Or maybe you are saying its easier to abuse powerful votes, so REDUCE the max voting power to less and it will be harder to game.....Either way I don't think this is the issue.
It seems pretty easy and simple to me, powerful voters form guilds or groups that specifically notify abusers and then if they proceed anyways down vote them to give them a taste....if that doesn't work, down vote them into oblivion.
No one will play by rules which result in 0 payouts....
Actually you need not even bother with the slider bar at all (I'd love to see an option to turn it off) and you still have as many votes as you want. If you vote 20 times, then your votes are worth half as much each. The system auto-adjusts.
True, though you still have "more control" with the slider bar than without, but as you say you still have as many votes as you use and with each vote the value adjusts within the system.
Hey don't know if your responding to me specifically or just in general but I really appreciate how involved & experienced you are in this community. I see few if any who seem to see what is going on in Steemit more than you.
Sure would have been nice to meet you at SteemFest.