You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Witch Hunting Self Upvoters Solves Nothing
In my opinion this people who are against self upvote are socialist or are a great whale who do not want to increase competition.
Anyway, this will be detrimental to Steem, just think: Would you invest in a crypto currency where you are forbidden to profit? I think not.
If the people continue with this conversation of sharing wealth with everyone in the end everyone will have much of nothing.
Who wants to gain more SP that seeks to provide an excellent service to the community or that works to buy more SP.
That's a mischaracterization. Are you aware that every day we all have to decide with our up and down votes who gets the Steem?
There's nothing "socialist" about supporting the original idea of Steemit, that of cooperative voting. The idea basically is that you profit more by voting for others than you do by voting for yourself, to encourage us to evaluate each other's post and thus determine share of that day's rewards.
So I underline, profit is still and always was part of the equation, just not straight up interest on your stake. You have to do the slightly difficult work of finding good posts to vote on. If it's just interest in a bank, this aspect becomes marginal and it's just a ponzi.
Okay ... every one can do what think best about his vote, including voting for himself. Even the platform itself, at the time of writing your post, allows this option to be selected automatically.
As for the hypothesis about profit more by voting in the post of others than your own ... please show me some real proof. Some people talk about game theory using the Nash's equilibrium, but without evidence (probably those who say this don't study game theory). And honestly it has no logic.
Think about: The author of the post earns 75% of all value earned, while the curators earn 25%. I don't see how a curator invests 1 SBD and earns 2. Maximum will earn 0.25 SBD.
In my opinion the best way everyone will win in Steem is to provide services through the platform, for example if a charity's institution post on the platform and win the donations through votes, or a person create quality online courses on the platform and be paid through votes, rather than adsense from Youtube, for example.
This self-vote or not discussion is just a waste of time, in my opinion.
Proof of what?
Proof this :)
That this idea was an original objective of Steemit?
From the whitepaper, section 2.5.2 - Voting on Distribution of Currency, pg 17 on new whitepaper available here:
This is exactly what was weakened in HF 19, the incentive to not defect to self vote, and exactly what needs to be fixed.
I agree.
I'm talking about today's reality. I joined Steemit after this HF, so I don't know it was before. What I know is the reality of today.
Thanks for sharing your opinion :)
Oh I see. Today's reality is not described in any official document except the code (not easy to read) but we can all observe by experimentation, though it's not ideal.
Markets are good at optimising around incentives and we can observe from the increase in self voting that it is more incentivized after HF 19, as can anyone who has experimented from this.
No problem, thanks for asking. 🙂
I think you neglect the reduction in votes as an incentive to self vote. HF 19 reduced the number of votes that can be cast by minnows by 400%. During the time HF19 was being discussed and developed, the number of posts rose by 1000%.
The number of votes available to be cast has been reduced dramatically, and those new to the platform are starved for votes.
I don't think the exponential weighting extant prior to HF19 reduced reward pool mining at all. Virtually all author rewards went to a handful of accounts, and as far as I know that hasn't changed at all since HF19.
If only every user got that concept. I actually think finding good posts from authors you don't know is part of the fun of Steemit. Feels like too many people upvote without reading the content.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. I probably need to calm down and write thoughtfully like your comment, I'll probably get my point across better.
Hmm, I don't know, I kinda like your firebrand style :-)
Cg