You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes
The only solution is some kind of 'heeling' account.
NB SBI actually has one of the best ROIs on the platform, it's not 50% like some of those BOTs were, but it's getting on for 20%, which beats the 11-12% you can get from @dlease.
For a healing account, you need big friends... Sadly, we don't have them.
The SBI ROI is achieved over a very very long time period, this making it a good incentive to stay and help build Steem. This is contrast to the Bid bot ROI which was short term and encouraged very short term maximisation behaviour.
Likewise, with the leases, you know directly who you are sponsoring.. Making it a conscious decision, rather than the abstracted ROI of a lease. In the same way that ethical stocks are a conscious choice rather than the profit at all costs mentality that genealogy prevails.
If we rally around @freezepeach, (by delegating even a token amount of steem) we have a chance to build-a-champion for ourselves.
Yes... but then who controls @freezepeach... after all, I don't agree with healing every downvote either. I just want there to be risk or consequence for actions... consequence free actions have never been a good idea in any situation! It might work on an individual level... but it doesn't work for groups.
I have been running freezepeach for over 2 years now. The main purpose is the nullify flags, not reward people, when the flags are for difference of opinion. There are quite a few exemptions that aren't considered, i.e. plagiarism, spam, vote buying, and more.
Hi, thanks for the clarification, I'm afraid that I just don't know enough about your project!
Anyway, despite the fact that you would do good work in nullifying flags for difference of opinion... it really isn't the sort of thing that should have to be done by "good" accounts.
After all, you can heal the effects of the downvote... but there is still no real disincentive or consequence for a poorly thought out vote/downvote. So, the lack of consequence leads to a lack of care in performing these actions. Some accounts might do it strategically or with precision to help influence, others might think the best form of influence is a sledgehammer.
Of course, different sizes of accounts can weather the effects of some votes... but there is a limit to what is possible. This sort of system isn't really the sort of thing that would be scalable if widespread adoption is the aim.
Whilst you personally (and via @freezepeach) may be able to keep up with some degree of levelling out manually or automatically, I would hazard the guess that you would struggle if this network scaled up dramatically?
We have some cool automated tools at our disposal, and while nobody will ever be able to stop another's actions on this decentralized platform, what @freezepeach does is take the wind out of their sails. When they see all their efforts are in vein, and they recognize they're wasting their power, they usually stop.
Right now we aren't ready for 1 million users, but if such a thing were to occur, development and procedures could be optimized to rise to the occasion.
Well at this point it's "better than nothing", I'm just trying to "stop the bleeding" so to speak.
I've been trying to encourage people to delegate some small token support (1 steem-power) to freezepeach, which you can take back at any time, all of freezepeach's actions are 100% transparent so if they suddenly go rogue, it's simple enough to retract your support.
They currently only have about 4,000 steem-power, and they're competing with abusive accounts that have 12,000+ steem-power.
It seems like it would be nice to boost them up to 100,000 steem-power or more (like @ curangel), then we'd at least have someone to call on when we see accounts getting pounded into the dust for no good reason.
People keep telling me this is the "wild west", so we need to build our own "lone ranger" if we want anything vaguely resembling "justice".
There's only one account I know of DVing with 200K SP, a vote-trail with 100s of SBI users would go some way to countering that at least.
Don't forget that's really only 40K SP worth of downvotes.
Unless there's more people who do so?
There are two. One is okay (proportional) , the other is not... It is hard to motivate and co-ordinate 100s of disparate people... Plus it isn't something that scales if we want mass adoption!
@freezepeach tries to help mitigate abusive downvotes, but they only have about 4,000 steem-power.