RE: Let's Reawaken the debate on Auto-Voting (Part 1 of 3)
Have you considered that if new users lose 50% of their reward without consent, what is their incentive to even post or stay? I think if users both new and old are given the choice, it would be wise for new users to designate larger percentages to curators to gain a following, but this shouldn't be forced upon them. This will give curators incentive to vote, and new born authors incentive to post QUALITY content. I can tell you, I know people who have left because of failure to get the rewards they joined to get, and I know that I would have been disappointed when I first joined and made 800 dollars off of my symphony, if only 400 of it was mine because someone forced me to lose the other 400. Manually curating is a lot more time consuming than bot voting, without bot voting half the whales on Steemit wouldn't be giving out big rewards because they have lives outside of reading through Steemit articles. Bots don't just have to vote on a list of people, the criteria they can vote off of is limit less (Key words, time up, amount made, reputation of author, category in, etc).
That would make your vote more powerful. As said in the article - the reward pool stays the same no matter who doesn't vote.
Yes, but I don't deserve more influence on authors. I have less steem power, and have worked less to gain what I have, than the whales. What is the point in gaining Steem power if when you become a whale, a minnow has more influence than you? The system was designed so those who make more of an investment have a larger say. To try to take away their voice discourages investment, and lowers the overall value of Steem, meaning I have a smaller impact.
I'm not sure what work you think the whales did.... Not to sound bitter, but many of them (some of the biggest ones) were at the right place at the right time and just started mining... Which means pushing a button on a server and going about their day without doing anything again..... Those with more SP would still have more say, but they would be required to do as much work as anybody else. Nobody is taking away their voice. They take away their own voice if they choose to be inactive. That voice will still be there when they come back.
The whales worked by investing their money, time, and computer power in Steem when it was a HUGE risk (Not to mention it took my dad a week of work to get a miner running with Abit's instructions, and when they joined they had to learn to make their computers mine from scratch). If they didn't have to work, why is it they have benefited more than you? Being in the right place at the right time takes instinct. They wouldn't have more say because you are proposing that we make it so they can't vote however the heck they choose. Last time I checked it's their vote to give, not yours. You think it's easy programming a bot? They can't use a list because if they always upvote the same authors the same authors would abuse it, so they need to make their bots unpredictable.
Some of the whales have families and jobs, they don't choose to be inactive, it is their responsibility. They won't have their voice if this plan goes through because the price of steem would plummet, and everyone who invested would pull out to salvage what little money they can, and Steemit would go out of business.
So what you're saying is steemit will be just like facebook. The largest stakeholders are the only stakeholders who have a say. -just like all corporations. Why would anybody want be keep their SP if the little bit they have never matters?
Name me one corporation that succeeded by giving a say to people who have no interest in investing in it. What you are saying is those who have sacrificed little should have more of a say than those who have sacrificed a lot. "Facebook and other corporations" are multi billion dollar companies, and for Steemit to succeed it needs to make profit as well. Meaning it needs experienced investors who have something to gain by it doing well. Those with little want to keep it because of supply and demand. Here's a link if you are unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
Time is another form of investment. So is attention. I'm suggesting (since Ned has been talking about this too) that people who invest their time and attention could get paid if we limited the ability of bots to outvote humans.
I'm not sure you understand the concept behind steemit. I suggest you go and watch some of Neds interviews.
I don't think Ned is asking to have his vote matter less, but I don't know. Steemit is a business, so the concept behind it is always to make profit, how they do that is debatable. The concept behind any job is working hard to get what you want, not cheating to get it. Time is an investment that is why interest is paid over time. I pay attention to new posts, even though I also run a bot. You are trying to tell people how they can and can't vote, last time I checked the reason why you stopped liking bots is because Steemvoter made you vote twice in a day rather than once. If you don't like it when steemvoter tells you how to vote, why are you trying to tell other people they can't use a certain method of voting. I am going to go shopping with my mother now. Thanks for the discussion.