RE: Come to Steemit.com to discover the best content on the internet ... and make money commenting!!!
Do you think we have enough visibility yet? To me, we could do more. This could be a regular topic of discussion with actual data. Weekly reports (maybe even daily reports?) and ask for engagement from the voters. I too often see people complaining about the author without calling out the actual voters who are doing the distribution from the rewards pool. Why don't we focus on the voters more? Why don't we have reports that don't assume blame, but instead try to explain? There may be valid reasons why some people decide to add others to voting bots. If we don't know those reasons, we can think it's a scammy voting ring. If we do, maybe we can reset our expectations on how (and why) people use their own Steem Power as they choose.
Many of the examples I've seen of people caring about the rewards pool distribution are (IMO) immature comparisons to "rape" instead of rational, non-judgemental discussions trying to understand why certain people vote the way they do.
People have reasons. Our ignorance of those reasons doesn't justify our moral judgements. If, on the other hand, we know those reasons and can clearly articulate them in ways the community at large can fully agree (or disagree) with, then it's possible support for those people will be removed or added. If there's still disagreement about the value behind the reasons for a vote, then it's not an issue we consensus on, so even more discussion should take place before we claim the community has figured this out and our solutions to it have failed.
I think you are in a denial over the fact that most of these are actually enrichment schemes that involve paid voting, hidden common ownership of the voter and author accounts, or off-chain payment schemes that leave no evidence on the platform itself.
I'm not moralizing here. I don't blame people for responding to the incentives as the platform presents them. It is just that the incentives are broken.
P.S. I agree the 'rape' thing is sensationalist, not precise, and not helpful. My personal focus is not on name calling or even focused on any specific individuals. It is on looking at the mechanism and what it incentivizes. Currently the answer, unfortunately, is a lot of non-value-creating behavior.
I’m not in denial as much as I’m suggesting a path forward which would expose it clearly. If asked “Why do you vote for X?” and the honest answer is “Becuase they pay me in bananas / sexual favors / Slim Jims / pieces of paper with dead people on them / piles of coke / (whatever)” then it becomes clear. If they lie about it and are inconsistent, I think over time, that becomes clear to the community also. If in the off chance they have a legit answer, then we all understand more. I’m simply assuming good intentions first. If they don’t want to talk about their reasoning and are unwilling to justify their vote with a rational response, then what you’re describing becomes more clear to everyone and in a way that makes as few assumptions as possible. Innocent until proven irrational.
The recent call-out of @ranchorelaxo is an example of what I mean. It’s telling that he/she/it did not defend themself (yet) but instead @haejin did.
I agree, looking to improve the mechanism is the best, long-term answer. I also think we have to work within the system we have in the mean time. I’m also not sure what technical or system solutions would improve this activity since it’s a common thing we see in most systems with humans involved. It’s possible a better identity and reputation system could help, and I think that’s part of what SMTs and their Oracles may provide. The “reputation” number we have now is silly if we have actors on the system that many are frustrated with which hold the highest reputation on the system.
As to moralizing, I get what you mean, and I do fall into that trap quite a bit due to my upbringing, but I also look at it not so much in terms of good and bad but in terms of long-term rational self-interest which values oneself as part of a whole and irrational short-term decisions which harm others and oneself in the long-term.
IMO you are not suggesting a path forward as much as suggesting what has been done over and over again for the past two years (with little, if anything, in the way of real progress).
And then what? No response at all, and as far as I can tell @haejin is still earning something like 6000 USD per day (i.e. 2 million USD per year) for doing little to nothing to add value to STEEM. It isn't a small number either, that's around 0.25% of the entire market cap of STEEM going to one person/scheme with little or nothing to show for it. Even if this individual 'calling out' approach were effective, what would happen is that the account would quietly go away and the scheme would be rehatched under different names, possibly different 'content', etc. The one thing that remains the same is the clear incentive to maximize individual earnings.
After two years of repeated and unchecked abuses (despite numerous calling outs), it becomes very much a question of the insanity of doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Long-term rational self-interest at the moment probably coincides with just maximizing individual earnings, because so many other people are doing it anyway and will very likely continue doing it, especially when the best answers we can come up with are: a) more of the same; and b) some poorly-defined and poorly-analyzed future 'solution' that probably won't ever even be fully implemented before moving on to something else (which is actually more of the same: Remember when 'curation guilds' were the solution, and then linear rewards?).
It is tempting to equate decisions which benefit oneself at the expense of others as irrational, but that is wishful thinking and moralizing, unless the rules of the system make this irrational, and they currently do not. Nor is it clear that @haejin earning around 2M USD/year is in any way irrational (for him and his affiliates).
The most likely solutions I see that would probably work are: