You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Witch Hunting Self Upvoters Solves Nothing

in #steemit7 years ago (edited)

Completely agree! I wrote a post about a month ago in which I said that the self-upvoting 'issue' that some people complain about is kinda a debate between socialism and anarchism.

Some people when they reach a high level of wealth in the offline world, give a lot of money back to their communities through whatever methods. And some people, don't. Some people take most of the profits and reinvest it into making more money for themselves. Should we get to vote or decide how these people should use their earned money and through which means?

You either invest time writing content on Steemit and earn Steem Power, or you invest money and buy that Steem Power. In both cases you should expect to get a return on your investment and that money that you can give yourself by upvoting yourself is totally earned.

That being said, I as a minnow, have decided 3 days ago to stop upvoting myself because I think I could earn more by using those self-upvotes to vote for other people's content and earn curation rewards. I'll have to see if that's true or not.

Sort:  

Good luck my friend. Share your results to us later :)

Thank you. I intend to do so after a month at the end of August. :) It takes a bit more time to actively curate content than to just upvote myself but I think in the end it will be more profitable.

I wish you success!

I don't see mathematically how, but I will wait for your results :D

LOL...yeah the math does not compute on that theory

You're a genius if you figure that out!

I think that even if I make it more profitable to curate content than to upvote myself, that will mostly apply to me. I said in a previous comment on another post that I view curating as a very subjective activity because every individual is a unique mix of life experiences, beliefs, definitions that he holds, opinions, points of view, ideas, etc.

While someone might consider a post as being quality content, another might view that content as completely useless or non-sense. And that translates directly into what posts he or she decides to upvote and how much each person will earn from curation.

Yeah, makes sense. In terms of financial rewards...curation return is very limited.

No one is anything that you shouldn't get a return on your investment into Steem Power, it's the most primary reason to convert Steem to Steem Power, always has been and always will.

The issue is on how the awarding of new Steem is to be done. I argue that we should preserve the original intent of trying to align incentives so that people vote on others in order to gain for themselves via curation rewards.

It's not about socialism or anarchism at all, it's more like how to distribute newly issued shares in a company by peer voting. Btw your post linked does not make hardly any argument at all about this. It would be interested to see it fleshed out, maybe you have a point after all but I don't see it now.

I argue that we should preserve the original intent of trying to align incentives so that people vote on others in order to gain for themselves via curation rewards.

You make it sound like that was the only way Steemit users were supposed to earn Steem, by curating content. Incentives are both for upvoting others and thus earning curation rewards and by creating content.

What you're arguing for is for Steemit Inc. to disable the ability for people to self-upvote because some Steemit users that have acquired large quantities of Steem Power are now upvoting themselves thus acting all greedy when in fact they shouldn't do that and instead they should give those upvotes to other people's content.

Witnesses are your politicians and can vote to change the rules. Convince enough witnesses to accept such a change and maybe you'll get your wish in one of the next hard forks.

I personally don't care if we have or do not have the ability to self-upvote.

It's not about socialism or anarchism at all, it's more like how to distribute newly issued shares in a company by peer voting.

There isn't one company here.

Everyone of us, here on the Steem blockchain, be it on Steemit, or on chainBB, or on other platforms built on Steem, represents a company. And everyone of us get to decide how we want to invest our earned Steem.

You can invest your funds in your company (by upvoting yourself) or you can invest your funds in other companies.

When I upvote someone else's post I actually, metaphorically speaking, from a financial point of view, buy shares in their company, which is represented by their post. Those shares, after 7 days, will bring me a profit, represented as a curation reward.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.24
JST 0.037
BTC 96612.01
ETH 3387.37
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.05