Great thoughts and an interesting discussion item. I have mixed feelings about the vote buying and renting. All of my votes are used for good content and for people who are working hard as curators and community builders to build this ecosystem. Even from a self-interested perspective, as a Steem holder, supporting good content and growth builds long term value and is a much better use of my voting power than simply selling it.
However, not everyone wants to engage with the content all the time. There need to be good reasons to hold Steem and some want a faster return. Also, the biggest issue here from Day 1 has been the imbalance in voting power. Kevin, you and I have spent the last 18 months or so supporting good content but also helping Steem climb out of that hole by giving under-rewarded users a chance to earn rewards for their work (and hopefully save some of it to increase their own voting power).
So I am sympathetic to those who want to rent or buy votes on their posts. I did not need to go through that, but only because I was fortunate to start here early. It's not easy for most people to get votes and rewards. I can see how renting or buying would be quite tempting, especially in the beginning when it's hard to get noticed.
I would much rather see good content get curated and rewarded for its merits rather than votes being sold and rented to anyone, but everyone deserves a chance and not everyone has been getting it, absent those services. So they do fill a need. That probably results in some lower quality content, but I also feel that we need to move beyond the expectation of only long posts getting rewarded. We need to reward people (at an appropriate level) for short form posts, links, memes, photos, videos, music, comments, and other activities and participation, not just long writing. Hopefully, we find those organically.
Finally, it's a free market. If voting power has a value, then that indicates a gap in the system, and I think people should be able to trade in it. We may see the same thing in the future with bandwidth as that becomes a desired item. And in the end, I don't know what effect all of this has on the content, but as long as people are engaged and participating and attracting others, then we'll see where it goes.
I would much rather see good content get curated and rewarded for its merits rather than votes being sold and rented to anyone, but everyone deserves a chance and not everyone has been getting it, absent those services. So they do fill a need.
@donkeypong This resonates hugely with me. And honestly, In my humble opinion, nothing compares with GOOD curation by the community. The reality of selling votes is that it has zero effect on rewarding good content. Anyone who can pay, can get a vote...and so many people do it, that it raises the water level of what it takes to "get noticed" anyway.
And in the end, I don't know what effect all of this has on the content, but as long as people are engaged and participating and attracting others, then we'll see where it goes.
I totally appreciate your honesty here. The most salient question for me is what type of Steemit Ecosystem sets us up for becoming Respected, Desired, and Notable in the 'real world'. If our ecosystem is flooded with cheap, transitive, and barely above spamming quality interactions and posts, that is super obvious to people.
If we can influence the system to heavily encourage QUALITY over MANIPULATION, that is also super obvious to anyone looking in. I want a Steemit that when a totally random person comes across online, they're like, HOLY FUCK, those people are doing something amazing.
Appearances are everything. Currently I think many people look at the site, and it looks somewhat akin to a freaky cult built around sucking up to each other.
Anyway, I'm really glad you're discussing the subject, I believe it to be of utmost importance to the future of the platform.
Also I totally agree with you here....
We need to reward people (at an appropriate level) for short form posts, links, memes, photos, videos, music, comments, and other activities and participation, not just long writing. Hopefully, we find those organically.
And might like to add, that ultimately finding ways to reward people that encourages them to offer wild, insightful, and very honest, or at least creative interactions is going to be key. I think the KIND of interactions people offer is huge...and for new folks seeing massive amounts of bot spam all over the place seems like a pretty clear detriment to all of us.
Love your response @itchykitten. Steemit is always going to be a free-for-all core website for the steem chain so everything will be here, it's natural then there will be plenty of disagreements until theres more user interfaces and communities that curate and produce according to different ethos. One thing i hope again is the reduction of bot spam especially from notification from voting services.
When I just joined Steemit a few months ago, I was surprised that self-voting was denounced by everybody, but there is no voice to denounce vote-selling. Self-voting gets half SP and half SBD. Vote selling gets all SBD (all cash) and can get curation. I was always wondering why vote-selling is tolerated by all the whales, and on the other hand self-voting is a shame.
However, sometimes, minnows need to buy votes, because they don't have other choice:
When I just joined Steemit, nobody knew me and I knew nobody. I have to pay the bot to up vote me for visibilities and increase reputation. I believe I did not get financial gain by buying the votes. My only gain is that my reputation increased a little from the votes.
Steemit.chat, the channel for appeal, is controlled by firepower, a spammer and abuser. He wants to be the dictator and censor steemit. Can anybody help me to bring this issue to SteemFest? Thanks
Hey, Brother
What do you want to say? I signed in and found randowhale listed in steemit tool page. I used this 'tool' when I was new at Steemit. What do you want to imply?
Also, I am curious why did you send money to randowhale? Donations?
I commend Kevin and yourself for making the concerted effort to reward quality content especially from newer people. For those with strong voting power, I will state it is greatly appreciated. And isnt that the solution to eliminating the need to buy voting power.
Personally, I have not done it nor will I. I can understand those that do and why they do it. However, if those with the VP voted for quality content, which is posted on here daily, wouldnt minnow turn into bigger fish at a much quicker pace?
I really have no problem with those who upvote their own posts. If one is looking for quality content, cant one find it in his/her own creation. I am sure most feel their stuff is quality.
Ultimately, I dont think anything will stop it. People engage in behavior that is self serving for the most part. People will buy votes simply because it helps them out. It is no different from the posts we see about the whales simply upvoting each other (which isnt completely true but that is another story)....why shouldnt they? If it serves them to "circle" vote, why shouldnt they?
For one i think @randowhale or services that are riskier or on the gamble side is a better form when it comes to the game aspects of voting. Services that offer higher payouts (compared to the required service fee) coming from the rewards pools seems like it removes some kind of value. Not sure if im making sense here but my gut is telling me the economics of such an arrangement is kinda punishing the rest of the network since some really do offer much greater short term rewards without any risk..
I would agree....it does hurt the rest of the network. Anytime gaming the system enables one (or many) to get a disproportionate part of the reward that means that those not gaming the system are affected. It is one thing to upvote your own content since you still have only one vote. However, when votes are bought then you are confronted with a situation where that person has multiplied their votes.
Yup agreeable that vote buying services can be put to good use. We should be free to trade as long as there's mutual consent. It's just that it can equally be abused, affecting the network. So I guess vote service providers just have to make sure its a net positive for the platform. Thinking about it now, I wonder if vote services should leave comments for every post. It looks spammy but on hindsight, it does provide notice for the rest of the community that a post has used said service, so users can determine if its abusive in nature or not. Maybe theres a better way to do this though. Also I've been thinking about the economics of vote services that offer significant short term returns, above the service fee which doesnt seem to make sense. Being riskless on that front just means that the risk has been pushed onto the rest of the network. Or maybe if everybody starts using them by default, the returns vs fee will reach an equilibrium and starts to be riskier for any users getting less tham what they paid for.
There is Javanese Proverb, This is Joyoboyo prediction (He predicted about this around 300-500 years ago). "Saiki jaman edan, lek ora edan ora keduman. Tapi sak becik-becike wong edan ijin luwih becik wong waspodo".
Agree with you Kevin even if I do understand why others choose faster methods to be upvoted. At least I have the knowledge that it was my reputation was earned by my followers that enjoyed reading my content. Thanks for your post. 🐓🐓
After reading through what you and @kevinwong's take on vote buying and renting, I wanted to share my experience and thoughts as well regarding this somewhat taboo topic. I used to buy votes occasionally when I felt that I wasn't being noticed myself. This quickly became a habit of buying them after posting, and I have since then (about a week) refuse to press any button that gives me votes, bought or not as I feel that this behavior would harm my account's credibility in the long run.
When talking about the "tribalistic support-for-support mentality", a lot of newer users including myself, have limited options outside of banding together with a circle that looks out for one another's content. However, when pulling back to see the whole picture, how often are these friends even reading, rather than for the sake of voting you because your article was good?
One thing that lead to my frustrations on Steemit, was how long I would work on some articles, for no one to read, nonetheless vote, and these paid services evened the playing field just a little bit, giving newer authors a chance to be seen higher on the list for their category.
One thing I really liked about your comment @donkeypong, was that I also agree that not every "great post" has to be the length of a book, along with barring myself from paid voting bots, I also have begun the process of varying the length of my own posts. Not every follower is going to read above 2000 word, hanging on every sentence, and at times, shorter pieces can also leave lasting impacts.
As far as giving out my power to someone else's vote, I currently have most of my sp delegated out for curation and spam fighting initiatives. I may not be able to make a difference with the few hundred SP I was using, but I know that others do, and can hopefully make positive dents in Steemit's eco system. Thank you for this enjoyable read guys.
I believe that vote buying is bad for steem as a whole, and for the individuals who do it.
Because when you are new to steem and you buy votes... you may earn a few bucks, but you cut yourself off from the real valuable stuff like Curie upvotes, OCD upvotes, etc etc.
It also looks bad - all those "Upvoted by [bot!]" comments are like kryptonite for real power users here, lol. I don't wanna support content that is funneling money into upvote bots.
It's hard though... what can we do? This is a free market, after all, and as long as there is profit to be had by running votebots, someone is gonna do it. So how can we constructively de-value bot votes? IDK to be honest.
Curie and OCD are two of the largest curation projects on steem. They offer big upvotes to new users creating quality content. In Curie's case, these votes can be worth $80+.
For Curie, you are not eligible for upvotes unless your post is worth less than $1 and your reputation is 52 or lower. This is because the goal is to support new, unestablished users - to get them some rewards and recognition for the hard work they do.
Whenever a new user boosts their posts via upvote bots, they usually end up earning 3-5 bucks... minus whatever they pay for the bots. This makes them ineligible for Curie and only earns then a dollar or two of profit. It's a real shame, IMO.
I really appreciate this topic and window for discussion. Aside from well-intended services such as minnowbooster for new users scraping on the bottom (introduced by a very helpful and supportive @reggaemuffin on the team to feel it's for a good cause), the concept of vote buying more than that really pisses me off. I think it's important to separate this into two parts: 1) Using bots (selectively vs in mass), and 2) bribing for or offering personal upvotes for a price.
Sending individuals SBD for their upvote is not an option for me, regardless of any level of success or failure I have on Steemit. While this platform often feels like a pyramid to claw up, it still feels like buying or selling votes in that fashion is cheating the system. The same goes for legacy arrangements for swapping huge upvotes.
While buying is your question, the same concept can be flipped to those who choose to sell their votes. People with valuable voting power that engage in this (scenario 2 above) are being greedy, and the blockchain can't hide it. I believe that it's a function of ethics, but perhaps I'm too biased or strict. If people don't sell, there's nothing to buy. It starts at the top.
I think that people should let the community reward naturally for effort and value. Quality work and proactive engagement will eventually snowball into a loyal following in theory. Maybe it won't with all of this said spam and static. But, turning to shortcuts means you're not willing to do the work and probably won't have what it takes. It's not easy getting virtually nothing for my posts unless I reluctantly use minnowbooster to salvage some pride and get my voters some type of return. I've only done this a few times because I mainly want my effort to be seen and appreciated, and it doesn't necessary have to be in monetary form. Receiving comments and discussion is more valuable to me than $10.
Regardless, if I'm going to succeed on this site, it's going to be organically via good content, intentions and networking by my own means. I won't sell/buy out.
What's the root of the problem? I think it's the supply and demand of meaningful upvotes for non-whales!! I think that part of this buy/sell "marketplace" is being generated from a large portion of powerful Steemit users staying connected with each other via voting rings and favors, regardless of how poor the content is. Do people really need the largest ROI on their curation that badly when their account is loaded? No. It feels like politics. I've seen the most absurd posts yield hundreds and am shocked that the whales could even vote for it, i.e., what makes it appear like there's more to the story. This isn't a conspiracy theory, I see it every day, and it's transparent via steemd or steemnow. If those users were actively curating and rewarding newer users, the demand for buying and selling votes would not be as strong.
Paying for votes is equal to corruption in politics. How is it here in Steemit? To tell the truth, I pay for voting, 20-50 SBD/week, but I don't feel good to do that. I need it yet, because every dollar counts for me, as Steemit is a tool for surviving day by day. This seems to be a kind of investment, which brings a little surplus, 10-20 or sometimes 50%. But I don't think it's good when thousands of people use voting bots to boost even their bad quality or spam posts. I'm trying to write good content with original photos/artworks as far as I can. I do a lot of effort here, but not everybody do the same, just a low percentage of steemians. What does this lead to? Dilution of contents, more spam and so on!
Totally agree. I really don't get it. If you are buying votes, then aren't you often paying more for the vote than what the vote is worth?...or maybe not. For me it all seems just pretty lame. I'd prefer to reach out to whales like yourself, and say "Hey! throw this little guy a bone. Can't you see how much work I put into my highly unique and informative blog. I can't be doing this for pennies." Something like that.
I haven't came out and said that to you. But I did @lukestokes just before quitting the platform. He saw and recognized my efforts and quality work here, and has since supported me. With him having a 7 dollar up-vote it's changed everything for me here, and frankly has kept me here.
You actually checked out my work and gave me four fat up-votes in a row. It's hard to describe how good that made me feel after almost quitting.
My first two months was like $.13 (20 upvotes) $.42 (30 upvotes) $.63 (40 upvotes) Getting paid is where it's at brother! I don't have time to work for free. I enjoy my travel life. Getting support from the whales is like getting hired for my contributions to the platform.
I've been living out of a backpack for 11 years. My blog is so informative and unique for just another "travel blog". People are now seeing it and appreciating it. I didn't intend to write so much about myself, but minnows are struggling here and want to make it so bad, that they buy their up-votes! uggg. I was literally just going walk away instead, and call it a loss.
Thank you for your support in the present, past, and future. Love and appreciate what you do here as well! Enjoy Steemfest my Steemit friend.
I am kinda new here and i only used originalworks bot, but even that adds a comment that seems kinda... spammy.
I look at some other people i follow and even if i like the content and want to comment i see many bot upvote comments that get me personally discouraged to comment.
I just want to post things i am interested in and hope other people like it too, but is the "shortcuts" to success or more views worth it?
Although you and allot of the commenters make valid sentiments about the integrity of the platform being violated, I have no problem with automated vote buying services like @randowhale . Currently, it seems like the trending and hot content is solely due to whales and whale votes. The only way to compete with that is to promote your post in various ways. I see users using vote buying the most when they put a great deal of time an effort into something and what it to have a chance at getting some momentum. I myself have written detailed articles that I worked on for days, had I not got it to the hot page with voting bots, it would have got far less exposure, likes, comments, and dialogue. Heres the article https://steemit.com/technology/@quattrophoto/the-orewellian-experience-of-working-at-an-amazon-warehouse
And I still didn't even “profit” off this article, I lost money like most people do who buy votes, which is fine i gained followers and the satisfaction of having a valuable conversation with real people
I do not appreciate people asking for votes and I strongly feel that their work should do all the talking. If someone consistently produces quality content, maintains a solid level of activity and otherwise engages with the community, that someone is bound to gain readers and thus, slowly, upvotes. I would much rather encourage people to focus on producing as opposed to shouting the loudest to get votes, however you wrap the latter.
You have a very good point! I have tested these voting services myself a few times, and to be honest, I disliked the following automated comments and the fact that my reputation increased. That's right - when one's buying votes, one's also buying reputation. I find this ridiculous!
I think in real life buying votes undermines a lot in a democratic society but when it comes to steemit I feel it's double edged sword, because on one hand it can help you reach the trending page and get to a wider audience faster but on the other hand it adds a layer of distance and greed in relationship to the audience.
Great thoughts and an interesting discussion item. I have mixed feelings about the vote buying and renting. All of my votes are used for good content and for people who are working hard as curators and community builders to build this ecosystem. Even from a self-interested perspective, as a Steem holder, supporting good content and growth builds long term value and is a much better use of my voting power than simply selling it.
However, not everyone wants to engage with the content all the time. There need to be good reasons to hold Steem and some want a faster return. Also, the biggest issue here from Day 1 has been the imbalance in voting power. Kevin, you and I have spent the last 18 months or so supporting good content but also helping Steem climb out of that hole by giving under-rewarded users a chance to earn rewards for their work (and hopefully save some of it to increase their own voting power).
So I am sympathetic to those who want to rent or buy votes on their posts. I did not need to go through that, but only because I was fortunate to start here early. It's not easy for most people to get votes and rewards. I can see how renting or buying would be quite tempting, especially in the beginning when it's hard to get noticed.
I would much rather see good content get curated and rewarded for its merits rather than votes being sold and rented to anyone, but everyone deserves a chance and not everyone has been getting it, absent those services. So they do fill a need. That probably results in some lower quality content, but I also feel that we need to move beyond the expectation of only long posts getting rewarded. We need to reward people (at an appropriate level) for short form posts, links, memes, photos, videos, music, comments, and other activities and participation, not just long writing. Hopefully, we find those organically.
Finally, it's a free market. If voting power has a value, then that indicates a gap in the system, and I think people should be able to trade in it. We may see the same thing in the future with bandwidth as that becomes a desired item. And in the end, I don't know what effect all of this has on the content, but as long as people are engaged and participating and attracting others, then we'll see where it goes.
@donkeypong This resonates hugely with me. And honestly, In my humble opinion, nothing compares with GOOD curation by the community. The reality of selling votes is that it has zero effect on rewarding good content. Anyone who can pay, can get a vote...and so many people do it, that it raises the water level of what it takes to "get noticed" anyway.
I totally appreciate your honesty here. The most salient question for me is what type of Steemit Ecosystem sets us up for becoming Respected, Desired, and Notable in the 'real world'. If our ecosystem is flooded with cheap, transitive, and barely above spamming quality interactions and posts, that is super obvious to people.
If we can influence the system to heavily encourage QUALITY over MANIPULATION, that is also super obvious to anyone looking in. I want a Steemit that when a totally random person comes across online, they're like, HOLY FUCK, those people are doing something amazing.
Appearances are everything. Currently I think many people look at the site, and it looks somewhat akin to a freaky cult built around sucking up to each other.
Anyway, I'm really glad you're discussing the subject, I believe it to be of utmost importance to the future of the platform.
Also I totally agree with you here....
And might like to add, that ultimately finding ways to reward people that encourages them to offer wild, insightful, and very honest, or at least creative interactions is going to be key. I think the KIND of interactions people offer is huge...and for new folks seeing massive amounts of bot spam all over the place seems like a pretty clear detriment to all of us.
Love your response @itchykitten. Steemit is always going to be a free-for-all core website for the steem chain so everything will be here, it's natural then there will be plenty of disagreements until theres more user interfaces and communities that curate and produce according to different ethos. One thing i hope again is the reduction of bot spam especially from notification from voting services.
Yeah that seems like a pretty solid low hanging fruit.
@kevinwong, thanks for the good post.
@donkeypong, thanks for the good comment.
When I just joined Steemit a few months ago, I was surprised that self-voting was denounced by everybody, but there is no voice to denounce vote-selling. Self-voting gets half SP and half SBD. Vote selling gets all SBD (all cash) and can get curation. I was always wondering why vote-selling is tolerated by all the whales, and on the other hand self-voting is a shame.
However, sometimes, minnows need to buy votes, because they don't have other choice:
When I just joined Steemit, nobody knew me and I knew nobody. I have to pay the bot to up vote me for visibilities and increase reputation. I believe I did not get financial gain by buying the votes. My only gain is that my reputation increased a little from the votes.
When I detected firepower, a reputation 69 user, was using a bot to sent out more than 300 comments in a single day to spam Steemit, I wrote an article to reveal it. Then, firepower, the spammer, came to curse me, threaten me, and down vote me. He even banned my steemit.chat account. For some reasons that I don't know, you guys also came to down vote me. Fortunately, both of you removed the down votes within hours. However, firepower and his bot s4s down voted me very hard. I have no powerful friend to seek help. In order to make my articles visible, I have to buy the up votes, no other choice. I paid more than $45 to buy the up votes to make my articles visible. Its my only weapon to fight a powerful spammer and abuser.
Steemit.chat, the channel for appeal, is controlled by firepower, a spammer and abuser. He wants to be the dictator and censor steemit. Can anybody help me to bring this issue to SteemFest? Thanks
upvote for visibility
Thanks
So you think it's appropriate for one to buy votes in order to increase his/her reputation?
Reputation cannot be bought; it must be earned.
Hey, Brother
What do you want to say? I signed in and found randowhale listed in steemit tool page. I used this 'tool' when I was new at Steemit. What do you want to imply?
Also, I am curious why did you send money to randowhale? Donations?
No, I have also tested these services myself a few times before realizing that this increases my reputation alongside the rewards.
Got it
All I'm saying is that self-bought votes shouldn't increase the reputation score.
When I was new at here, I was trying to submit good post to curie, and was told my reputation was too low.
How much reputation the self bought votes can give? Not too much.
The real problems are circle jerk and the whales who sell the votes.
I commend Kevin and yourself for making the concerted effort to reward quality content especially from newer people. For those with strong voting power, I will state it is greatly appreciated. And isnt that the solution to eliminating the need to buy voting power.
Personally, I have not done it nor will I. I can understand those that do and why they do it. However, if those with the VP voted for quality content, which is posted on here daily, wouldnt minnow turn into bigger fish at a much quicker pace?
I really have no problem with those who upvote their own posts. If one is looking for quality content, cant one find it in his/her own creation. I am sure most feel their stuff is quality.
Ultimately, I dont think anything will stop it. People engage in behavior that is self serving for the most part. People will buy votes simply because it helps them out. It is no different from the posts we see about the whales simply upvoting each other (which isnt completely true but that is another story)....why shouldnt they? If it serves them to "circle" vote, why shouldnt they?
For one i think @randowhale or services that are riskier or on the gamble side is a better form when it comes to the game aspects of voting. Services that offer higher payouts (compared to the required service fee) coming from the rewards pools seems like it removes some kind of value. Not sure if im making sense here but my gut is telling me the economics of such an arrangement is kinda punishing the rest of the network since some really do offer much greater short term rewards without any risk..
I would agree....it does hurt the rest of the network. Anytime gaming the system enables one (or many) to get a disproportionate part of the reward that means that those not gaming the system are affected. It is one thing to upvote your own content since you still have only one vote. However, when votes are bought then you are confronted with a situation where that person has multiplied their votes.
And that hurts the entire system.
Yup agreeable that vote buying services can be put to good use. We should be free to trade as long as there's mutual consent. It's just that it can equally be abused, affecting the network. So I guess vote service providers just have to make sure its a net positive for the platform. Thinking about it now, I wonder if vote services should leave comments for every post. It looks spammy but on hindsight, it does provide notice for the rest of the community that a post has used said service, so users can determine if its abusive in nature or not. Maybe theres a better way to do this though. Also I've been thinking about the economics of vote services that offer significant short term returns, above the service fee which doesnt seem to make sense. Being riskless on that front just means that the risk has been pushed onto the rest of the network. Or maybe if everybody starts using them by default, the returns vs fee will reach an equilibrium and starts to be riskier for any users getting less tham what they paid for.
There is Javanese Proverb, This is Joyoboyo prediction (He predicted about this around 300-500 years ago). "Saiki jaman edan, lek ora edan ora keduman. Tapi sak becik-becike wong edan ijin luwih becik wong waspodo".
I have already posted about this. https://steemit.com/indonesia/@happyphoenix/saiki-jaman-edan-ora-melu-edan-ora-keduman-sekarang-jaman-edan-tidak-ikut-edan-tidak-kebagian-we-are-in-crazy-time-era-not-join
Agree with you Kevin even if I do understand why others choose faster methods to be upvoted. At least I have the knowledge that it was my reputation was earned by my followers that enjoyed reading my content. Thanks for your post. 🐓🐓
Like you said, it's pretty hard to tell and so we shall see where it leads us.
Hello @donkeypong,
After reading through what you and @kevinwong's take on vote buying and renting, I wanted to share my experience and thoughts as well regarding this somewhat taboo topic. I used to buy votes occasionally when I felt that I wasn't being noticed myself. This quickly became a habit of buying them after posting, and I have since then (about a week) refuse to press any button that gives me votes, bought or not as I feel that this behavior would harm my account's credibility in the long run.
When talking about the "tribalistic support-for-support mentality", a lot of newer users including myself, have limited options outside of banding together with a circle that looks out for one another's content. However, when pulling back to see the whole picture, how often are these friends even reading, rather than for the sake of voting you because your article was good?
One thing that lead to my frustrations on Steemit, was how long I would work on some articles, for no one to read, nonetheless vote, and these paid services evened the playing field just a little bit, giving newer authors a chance to be seen higher on the list for their category.
One thing I really liked about your comment @donkeypong, was that I also agree that not every "great post" has to be the length of a book, along with barring myself from paid voting bots, I also have begun the process of varying the length of my own posts. Not every follower is going to read above 2000 word, hanging on every sentence, and at times, shorter pieces can also leave lasting impacts.
As far as giving out my power to someone else's vote, I currently have most of my sp delegated out for curation and spam fighting initiatives. I may not be able to make a difference with the few hundred SP I was using, but I know that others do, and can hopefully make positive dents in Steemit's eco system. Thank you for this enjoyable read guys.
Mahalo,
@shello
I believe that vote buying is bad for steem as a whole, and for the individuals who do it.
Because when you are new to steem and you buy votes... you may earn a few bucks, but you cut yourself off from the real valuable stuff like Curie upvotes, OCD upvotes, etc etc.
It also looks bad - all those "Upvoted by [bot!]" comments are like kryptonite for real power users here, lol. I don't wanna support content that is funneling money into upvote bots.
It's hard though... what can we do? This is a free market, after all, and as long as there is profit to be had by running votebots, someone is gonna do it. So how can we constructively de-value bot votes? IDK to be honest.
What are Curie and OCD upvotes and why would somebody be cut off from them by using voting bots?
Curie and OCD are two of the largest curation projects on steem. They offer big upvotes to new users creating quality content. In Curie's case, these votes can be worth $80+.
For Curie, you are not eligible for upvotes unless your post is worth less than $1 and your reputation is 52 or lower. This is because the goal is to support new, unestablished users - to get them some rewards and recognition for the hard work they do.
Whenever a new user boosts their posts via upvote bots, they usually end up earning 3-5 bucks... minus whatever they pay for the bots. This makes them ineligible for Curie and only earns then a dollar or two of profit. It's a real shame, IMO.
Thanks for the explanation :)
Any link to this OCD and Curie think would be greatly appreciated.
I really appreciate this topic and window for discussion. Aside from well-intended services such as minnowbooster for new users scraping on the bottom (introduced by a very helpful and supportive @reggaemuffin on the team to feel it's for a good cause), the concept of vote buying more than that really pisses me off. I think it's important to separate this into two parts: 1) Using bots (selectively vs in mass), and 2) bribing for or offering personal upvotes for a price.
Sending individuals SBD for their upvote is not an option for me, regardless of any level of success or failure I have on Steemit. While this platform often feels like a pyramid to claw up, it still feels like buying or selling votes in that fashion is cheating the system. The same goes for legacy arrangements for swapping huge upvotes.
While buying is your question, the same concept can be flipped to those who choose to sell their votes. People with valuable voting power that engage in this (scenario 2 above) are being greedy, and the blockchain can't hide it. I believe that it's a function of ethics, but perhaps I'm too biased or strict. If people don't sell, there's nothing to buy. It starts at the top.
I think that people should let the community reward naturally for effort and value. Quality work and proactive engagement will eventually snowball into a loyal following in theory. Maybe it won't with all of this said spam and static. But, turning to shortcuts means you're not willing to do the work and probably won't have what it takes. It's not easy getting virtually nothing for my posts unless I reluctantly use minnowbooster to salvage some pride and get my voters some type of return. I've only done this a few times because I mainly want my effort to be seen and appreciated, and it doesn't necessary have to be in monetary form. Receiving comments and discussion is more valuable to me than $10.
Regardless, if I'm going to succeed on this site, it's going to be organically via good content, intentions and networking by my own means. I won't sell/buy out.
What's the root of the problem? I think it's the supply and demand of meaningful upvotes for non-whales!! I think that part of this buy/sell "marketplace" is being generated from a large portion of powerful Steemit users staying connected with each other via voting rings and favors, regardless of how poor the content is. Do people really need the largest ROI on their curation that badly when their account is loaded? No. It feels like politics. I've seen the most absurd posts yield hundreds and am shocked that the whales could even vote for it, i.e., what makes it appear like there's more to the story. This isn't a conspiracy theory, I see it every day, and it's transparent via steemd or steemnow. If those users were actively curating and rewarding newer users, the demand for buying and selling votes would not be as strong.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Paying for votes is equal to corruption in politics. How is it here in Steemit? To tell the truth, I pay for voting, 20-50 SBD/week, but I don't feel good to do that. I need it yet, because every dollar counts for me, as Steemit is a tool for surviving day by day. This seems to be a kind of investment, which brings a little surplus, 10-20 or sometimes 50%. But I don't think it's good when thousands of people use voting bots to boost even their bad quality or spam posts. I'm trying to write good content with original photos/artworks as far as I can. I do a lot of effort here, but not everybody do the same, just a low percentage of steemians. What does this lead to? Dilution of contents, more spam and so on!
Upvoted for honestly sister!!! I also buy votes and don't really agree with it!
Totally agree. I really don't get it. If you are buying votes, then aren't you often paying more for the vote than what the vote is worth?...or maybe not. For me it all seems just pretty lame. I'd prefer to reach out to whales like yourself, and say "Hey! throw this little guy a bone. Can't you see how much work I put into my highly unique and informative blog. I can't be doing this for pennies." Something like that.
I haven't came out and said that to you. But I did @lukestokes just before quitting the platform. He saw and recognized my efforts and quality work here, and has since supported me. With him having a 7 dollar up-vote it's changed everything for me here, and frankly has kept me here.
You actually checked out my work and gave me four fat up-votes in a row. It's hard to describe how good that made me feel after almost quitting.
My first two months was like $.13 (20 upvotes) $.42 (30 upvotes) $.63 (40 upvotes) Getting paid is where it's at brother! I don't have time to work for free. I enjoy my travel life. Getting support from the whales is like getting hired for my contributions to the platform.
I've been living out of a backpack for 11 years. My blog is so informative and unique for just another "travel blog". People are now seeing it and appreciating it. I didn't intend to write so much about myself, but minnows are struggling here and want to make it so bad, that they buy their up-votes! uggg. I was literally just going walk away instead, and call it a loss.
Thank you for your support in the present, past, and future. Love and appreciate what you do here as well! Enjoy Steemfest my Steemit friend.
I am kinda new here and i only used originalworks bot, but even that adds a comment that seems kinda... spammy.
I look at some other people i follow and even if i like the content and want to comment i see many bot upvote comments that get me personally discouraged to comment.
I just want to post things i am interested in and hope other people like it too, but is the "shortcuts" to success or more views worth it?
Fully agree, but obviously unavoidable. I support the pledge to let it at least happen silently.
Although you and allot of the commenters make valid sentiments about the integrity of the platform being violated, I have no problem with automated vote buying services like @randowhale . Currently, it seems like the trending and hot content is solely due to whales and whale votes. The only way to compete with that is to promote your post in various ways. I see users using vote buying the most when they put a great deal of time an effort into something and what it to have a chance at getting some momentum. I myself have written detailed articles that I worked on for days, had I not got it to the hot page with voting bots, it would have got far less exposure, likes, comments, and dialogue. Heres the article https://steemit.com/technology/@quattrophoto/the-orewellian-experience-of-working-at-an-amazon-warehouse
And I still didn't even “profit” off this article, I lost money like most people do who buy votes, which is fine i gained followers and the satisfaction of having a valuable conversation with real people
If im right about randowhale, its more of a gamble since the returns might be less than the input since the upvote strength is well, randomised
I dont think ive ever not gained steem using rando its payout is always higher than the payment by design
I do not appreciate people asking for votes and I strongly feel that their work should do all the talking. If someone consistently produces quality content, maintains a solid level of activity and otherwise engages with the community, that someone is bound to gain readers and thus, slowly, upvotes. I would much rather encourage people to focus on producing as opposed to shouting the loudest to get votes, however you wrap the latter.
You have a very good point! I have tested these voting services myself a few times, and to be honest, I disliked the following automated comments and the fact that my reputation increased. That's right - when one's buying votes, one's also buying reputation. I find this ridiculous!
good point
I think in real life buying votes undermines a lot in a democratic society but when it comes to steemit I feel it's double edged sword, because on one hand it can help you reach the trending page and get to a wider audience faster but on the other hand it adds a layer of distance and greed in relationship to the audience.