To authors with large Steem Power: please consider not voting for yourself when posting an post, for better curation reward distribution
You know you have a unfair advantage as an author, as you can upvote for yourself instantly when posting a new article. We know that you want eye balls and followers, that's fine.
But that looks greedy. As a popular author, you've already got a lot of people following you. After you voted with a large Steem Power, the reward for people voting after you will be diluted much. For better curation reward distribution, to give your followers' more reward, I sincerely suggest that you don't vote for yourself when posting.
This suggestion applies especially to early adopters for example @dan, @dantheman, @theoretical and @blocktrades, but also applies to new authors who gained meaningful Steem Power via writing, for example @stellabelle, @cryptoctopus, @donkeypong and etc.
Thanks.
//Edit:
For authors with not much Steem Power, I think it's not too bad to vote instantly.
Hi @abit i started out on steemit and trading steem few days ago, am finding it difficult making profit trading on bittrex with only 700 steem and am not the blogger type, You seem like a nice guy, and knowledgeable is there a ways to make some easier way making money using steem - Looking to save up for university fees
Thanks Highly Appreciated
The easiest way on this platform is blogging. Sorry I don't know how to help you. I'm not good at trading as well, nor blogging.
How about if they (we - not sure if I'd be classed as a 'large' SP holder) voted an hour after posting? That could act as an extra incentive for early voters.
I think the issue with getting authors to refrain from voting for themselves early, is that some will do it via a proxy/ shill account. Thereby getting the benefit without being perceived to be greedy.
You have my support if vote an hour after posting.
Anyway it's all about reputation. Technically it's unable to prevent anyone from voting for herself/himself early.
testing. removed
@@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
+%3E
How abou
@@ -154,16 +154,31 @@
oters.%0A%0A
+Another try.%0A%0A%3E
I think
@@ -370,8 +370,18 @@
greedy.
+%0A%0ATesting.
Completely agree on that. There's a visibility problem for most authors, after 1h you enter in the "dark steem". And when a whale upvote itself, he/she doesn't need to care about the quality of the post, he/she will be visible and people will upvote to get a share. Wrote about it here: https://steemit.com/steemit-ideas/@sictransitgloria/steem-is-not-a-ponzi-scheme-but-it-relies-strongly-on-co-option-and-we-can-hope-it-will-get-better-in-the-future
In the case of the founders or witness, I can understand an self-upvote if they have an important "official" message for the community
Hello @abit i am beginning here in steemit, my question is that all that people get steem power via writing or buying? , and second who give that steem power and the money of the vote if steem miners mine because they like to have steem, i dont understand where come that money from. Thanks,
i show you one my post https://steemit.com/tooth/@miguel12/the-toothpaste-cause-tooth-decay
I didn't entirely understand your question, but you can check https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/where-does-the-money-come-from-a-look-into-the-economics-of-steem and https://steemit.com/money/@lukestokes/the-bitcoinpizza-challenge-winners
I have a proposal for steem power rental market. Please give me your comments on it when you have a chance. Thanks,
https://steemit.com/steemit/@atomrigs/proposal-steem-power-rental-market
I get my answer......so kind of you...