The community/self split in free delegation?
Lately and happily, Delegation has been coming more and more into the spotlight, especially that of the Steemit-backed delegation to projects and how they are being used.
I have written about it before that I too have delegation, the difference is that I pay for mine and I am no whale. This means that in order for me to actually pay it off, I must somewhat self-vote. However, with SBD being what it is, I don't have to do this as much as others seem to. My self-voting percentage is 31% currently and that is only on articles, never on my own comments. I write a lot.
So, where does the other 70% go? Well, to a few people actually. In regards to posts, some are family, some are people I have onboarded I am trying to build, some are friends with decent content and many are on random posts I have found or have been sourced for me through @ocd or people throwing me links they think are worth something. A great deal also goes to reward the comments I get too, as I see comments as a critical part of engagement so, rewarding them and replying when possible is also critical.
But, what is the true cost of my delegation? Well, if I look at it from an opportunity cost perspective, I am missing out on 70% of what I pay for to get SBD, power up and be much larger than I currently am. Am I an idiot for not doing so. Yes. I am naive and idealistic and actually think that investing into the community will help the community grow and at the moment, I am really, really under-utilising my paid delegation for my own growth.
And, herein lies the problem with many that receive Steemit delegations or free delegations from interested parties who want the community to grow. How much should be spent on the ones with delegation to grow and how much should be pushed out to the community it intended for?
Many of the projects with massive delegations seem to spend an inordinate amount on a small group of people who work for the project itself or the owners of the project. Considering they are also taking percentage cuts from curation and beneficiaries of every post through their interface, doesn't this seem a touch, not community spirited? To me, this is akin to a charity claiming from the community and government and then using the majority of support for 'administration costs' whilst living in lavish homes and driving expensive cars.
The other thing that seems to happen is a narrow band (again nearly always including the close circle of the project) getting rewarded very heavily. This has two affects as it pushes posts into trending for views and, it is like the lottery. It offers very high rewards that attract people, but the chances of getting the 'win' are small which means more users, and more beneficiary rewards. This is also lazy curating and not great for community spread and if the idea of the delegation is to build the community, this process fails at it. In my small opinion, no reposted meme grabbed from the internet is worth $100s and a place in trending.
So, I understand that everyone can do with their stake as they choose but, delegation from Steemit is NOT their stake, it is Steemit's and if they want it used for community building, it should be largely used in a way that maximises the gains for the community and distributes Steem to more users for future stability and growth.
I understand and accept that those running the projects and even maybe their friends can benefit from the delegation to grow their own accounts a little too but, what should the split be? And, should people who are consistently powering down, or taking all liquids off-platform to never come back be getting Steemit backed support to do so?
There was the infamously curious case of the highly rated Sweetsssj who is still gaining massive support even though she was found to be selling delegation meant for community development and, highly upvoting 10 or so of her claimed 'friends' (I suggest scrolling through the wallets of the friends) who were all strangely extracting everything to the same Bittrex account. Why would they add that headache to the friendship? She is not alone in this type of behaviour but is obviously the most visible considering her 75 rep and 25,000 followers.
What is the limit between community growth/self-growth and greed? And why does the community accept unacceptable splits from accounts that are already the largest on the platform abusing delegations and at times, very blatantly doing so? Is it because people are still hoping for the big reward votes from those projects and people?
Again, I am an idealist who would like to see this community become a force but it seems that at every turn, there are challenges that no one wants to actually acknowledge as they fear the repercussions of doing so. I too have this fear as to bring things into the light of conversation means to risk losing the support I currently get, the support which gives me the chance to support others and grow myself.
I am not sure what the solution is to the Steemit delegations meant for community growth but, I think there should be at least some checks and balances to make sure that a significant amount of the delegation is being used in ways that support the intended purpose. Too often it seems that it is only when the community itself brings these things to light that something gets done. Perhaps the system of delegation should be rethought.
I spend a lot of my writing trying to build community in different ways whether it be the information to encourage power ups, various ways to engage or the resilience needed to keep going even though current support is low. I keep saying, 'in the future' and really believe that the future is bright but how does it help when the most visible accounts on Steemit, backed by Steemit itself are abusing the trust of the community under the guise of helping?
Well, I can't change that, I can just keep doing what I do and hope that in time, the system will regulate and limit those who are doing more harm than good. I am far from perfect but if this is some people's concept of community, I am curious as to their background experiences as their behaviours rarely seem in the interest of anyone other than themselves.
Anyway, that is my rant for the day or week...
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Unfortunately it seems free delegations are given to the ones that deserve it the least and furthermore it seems like there is no auditing after its given to see if the delegation is used for the purpose it was given. It's human nature after all. Most people, including me, would abuse a power for their self interest when they know there is little to none repreccussions.
Or perhaps they do.
They do. But when you can click a button and get 100 sbd (~ 400 USD ) for a 5 word comment it's hard to resist the temptation and only look for the bettwr good. :)
Had there been regulatory percussions for delegated steem power I think self riches and selfish upvotes will be checked
But how much abuse. I really do understand rewarding the self also for building the community but the scales are definitely unbalanced. It seems scam until caught rather than work hard, grow slow and look long. The idea is that these projects should be developed and be able to stand on their own feet, not the leaders financed to enjoy their life off-platform. Perhaps they don't understand how real business longevity works where it requires rolling earnings back into the business.
I have a really hard time with people who claim they're supporting the community, but you look at the numbers and they're self-voting 75, 85, even 95+% of the time. It's difficult to say they're not gaming the system. The whole point is that you write good content and give appreciation to others' good content and you're rewarded. That's not always the case.
I could totally understand if you upvoted yourself more. If you're actually paying for a delegation, you need to get your money back. You wouldn't pay for Steem on the market and then not collect. At the end of the day, it's yours to do with as you please.
In regards to spreading it around, I'm currently at 34% voting power, because I have a hard time NOT voting for people. There's so much good content and I want to encourage people to keep producing it, and building community along the way. I don't have as much as some people (I'm still a redfish), but I have more than others and I do what I can to help them out. One of the biggest ways I've been doing that is through sponsoring people for @steembasicincome memberships so they get at least some reward on their posts. It's tough getting low payouts and even a little boost can go a long way, even if it's only mentally. Yes, when my account grows I'll have more opportunity to help, but there's no time like the present to start.
Wow! There is so much going on here that I have no clue about.
Once you bring money into any equation, this is what you get. We have to remember that at the end of the day, steemit is a community of living people from different backgrounds, with different concepts of life and different attitudes towards money. There will be greed and usury because the fact that steemit rewards posts and comments is the reason why most persons are here. They are not here to build community or make friends. Do not care whether steemit rises or falls. They just want the quick buck. They see steemit as a flare in the night that will fade away soon, so they want to cash out fast. They have no faith in the system.
For persons who minnows respect as people who have achieved the seemingly impossible to forget the responsibility that comes with the position they occupy is bad enough but to cheat those who lack, is a sad commentary on the world we live in because this is what we get offline. The question is how decentralized is steemit with such issues bedevilling the community?
Yeah, this is kinda hard to battle. I think it's kind of an inherent question where the most abusive users also have the most strength on the platform. People fear standing up against them, because they could have their content flagged in all eternity. Not sure how to solve it though
That is the only thing not good about steemit.
Either comment something agreeable or don't comment at all.
Everyone is scared of the big players around here
Hey! @emilclaudell & @rjunaid12
It seems to me that borrowing Steem Power to give yourself a more valuable vote to use to stimulate certain aspects of the community that you endorse is a noble cause. This might be called philanthropy, what the ultra-wealthy also practice. The method you employ here lends an air of commitment and compassion to your endeavors and probably enhances your personal reputation with your followers. To this I say bravo.
On the other hand would it be so wrong to upvote your own posts to gain enough of your own Steem to eliminate your debt? Wouldn't that increase your power and also allow you to help build this community? Steemit is a game, after all, and in the rules of this game upvoting your own posts is allowed. Whales call the shots on Steemit. Striving to become a whale seems to be the best way to influence the platform in the most powerful way.
I've struggled with using bots, delegations, buying votes and have yet to do so feeling it to be a bit sleezy and uncouth. But I'm going nowhere fast and perhaps I've been foolish in my sense of personal morality on a gaming platform. When you play a game there is nothing wrong with playing by the rules or playing to win. It's difficult to be honest and giving when most are only in it for themselves. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.
Perhaps it is not a clear cut case. Yes, I could upvote more than just my posts to cover costs (or post 10-15 more articles a week but that is another 20-30 hours of work on top) but, I owuld not feel great about it. Plus, I am relatively highly rewarded so I am able to cover the cost out of other earnings.
It think it also shows something about me in some way, at least to myself, as I feel that some sacrifice is always required to create something greater than the sum of parts. This for me is a small sacrifice considering how much value I am able to spread to others and what spreading that value may result in for many more in the future of the platform itself.
If I look for a balanced sheet at all times, I think it will limit the upside potential of the future. This is especially true in how I see the value developing here through the growth of a community. Hopefully, I can nudge more toward self-sufficiency rather than reliance so they can help others too.
Your's is certainly the road less traveled. A man of honor is a rare thing to find these days. Let's hope it's contagious.
The biggest problem with such self-centric behavior is that we are merely building a (meta love) bubble.
Meta because anything steem related, love because isn’t it awesome you can actually make money this way.
The true shortsighted tho comes when no investor will come to the steem ecosystem and invest $5-20mm with a long-term perspective.
And why should they? The short term ROI is just too awesome, right. But that also means that we are building an unhealthy, foundationless ecosystem which can but collapse with the first quakes.
Quakes many, especially some of those "vertical interfaces" haven’t considered yet (nor have many blockchain zealots). Interesting times and it will boil down to whether Ned has the bottle or not.
Indeed it will
Hi Taraz ...
This is something I've been thinking about somewhat. As a newb steemit-user, and as an idealist, I've recently discovered and been learning about bots, and buying delegated steem, and my first thought was, ooh, wow, what an abuse-ripe system this might turn out to be.
An it seems it already is! ... For someone like me, this is very discouraging. I try my absolute best on all my posts. And I spend a lot of time looking for real people with quality content to interact with. I'm afraid that all of this time is being wasted, as the system grows and leaves all of us newbies behind.
Do you think Steemit removing the ability to self-vote altogether might improve the system as a whole?
And now this: I comment on a few posts and now my bandwidth is finished >.< ... Who knows when I'll get this comment through... sigh
@mandelsage
yes you are right @tarazkp. only few have great power to rule here. It had to be a free social platform but the newones are afraid of the ones with great powers. Still this community is very awesome but you question is quite valid and I also think that they should rethink about Delegation.
it says it delegation is to help newbies but it works for powerful ones 100 times more than new ones.
AND you are doing an amazing job You are an outstanding personality. I look for your bogs they are very realistic and helpful
nice post.Thank you for sharing with us..I hope you have a wonderful day. @tarazkp