5 Vote Maximum...Not Really a Maximum. Don't Freak Out.

image source

Target votes of 5 per Day...

@steemitblog announced September’s Release Candidate yesterday. And of all the changes that were listed, NONE received more attention than the new “Target Votes of 5 per Day instead of 40” change. 

We freaked out. 

Here is @steemitblog’s very brief explanation of the change: 

“We are changing the target number of votes per day from 40 to 5 so that more people keep their voting power below 100%. The purpose of this change is to rebalance power toward normal users and away from bots. You can still vote as often as you like, this change merely impacts the speed at which voting power is consumed.” 

So then @Theoretical comes in and tries to do some PR. He explains the new 5-vote curation system here. 

But it doesn’t help. We freak out even more. 

@theoretical made the mistake of leaving us with this parting question:  

“Suppose Alice and Bob each have 1000 SP. Alice votes 5 times a day and Bob votes 40 times a day. Should Bob get eight times as much influence and eight times as many curation rewards as Alice, or should the system give these two users an equal voice? If you believe that Alice and Bob should have an equal voice, then you, too, are actually a supporter of this change!"   

image source

HERE WERE OUR INITIAL RESPONSES (pulled from all over the place):    

@smooth: “Bob is investing more effort than Alice…. I think they should not have the same influence.”   

@liberost: “This proposal massively disincentivizes actual curators, and transfers power over to casual curators who vote less 5 posts per day. These are the type of users who check out what's trending and vote on what they like.”   

@williambanks: “Upvoting and following is how we mortals, BUILD social networks. Upvoting IS how we show appreciation to people who say some insightful stuff whether we agree or not. With enough opportunities to upvote, it doesn't matter if we toss a few "appreciation votes" at our friends and even a few at our "frenemies".  Now instead of 40 chances a day to spread a bit of recognition around, I get 5. It makes us stingier, because now it's no longer an emotional decision, it's a business decision.”     

@dennygalindo: “Of course the guy spending time to vote 40 times should get more than someone who logs on for 5 minutes and makes 5 votes. We want activity.    

That said The reason I might like the rule is that I think having too many full powered whale votes disrupts the system. Now where many whales will be under 100percent they might rock the boat less.”   

@fingolfin: “People will vote for less content, the trending page will become less diverse as people will only choose to vote for a sure thing.”   

@liberosist: “This proposal massively disincentivizes actual curators, and transfers power over to casual curators who vote less 5 posts per day. These are the type of users who check out what's trending and vote on what they like. Net result - the curation community will come to a halt, the Trending page be more predictable than it ever was.” 

@ats-david: “But what about all of the human users who are not bots who do in fact spend hours a day reading through content and curating, commenting, and just interacting in general to advance the platform? Now they're put in the position of either splitting their votes to an almost meaningless reward for the posters or simply decide to not upvote the content. And doesn't this reduce incentive to reward great comments as well?”   

@eatgrits: “I would have upvoted this [comment], but now I think I'll save it :)” 

@owdy: “If you spend more time curating, you increase your sample size and are more likely to upvote only good content. I agree that the edge one gets from spending more time on the site is most likely diminished” 

@donkeypong: “5 votes a day? NO ONE can do any real curation under that scheme….We'd go back to the days when emerging authors and artists got far fewer votes and rewards.” 

And my reaction was the same. It seemed like Steemit’s efforts to make the site more human were actually hindering authenticity and quality curation.  

image source

BUT THEN WE KIND OF SETTLED DOWN. 

We realized that we can still vote to our heart's content. We just have the added bonus of choosing whether we'd like to vest all of our power into 5 really special votes, or if we'd like to spread the love. It's totally up to us. 

@gomeravibz came back with a change of heart: “Ok well i have returned to say what my reaction to the new control on curation power to each vote after my day of curation voting! I love it !!!! You decide now on each vote what pressure in Steem power you wish to hand over as opposed to the steady more linear decline in voting power of before. For say a comment I can choose to give say 15 or 20 percent depending on my reasoning”   

And then @dannygalindo came back with a full post "5 Votes a Day Good Just Marketed Wrong." He says:

“When told we are losing 40 votes a day it made heavy curators mad and frustrated. But this is merely irrational human psychology We could have instead been told we were getting five super votes a day in addition to our 40 votes for use on content we thought was really good and everyone would love it. This is what we actually got!” 

And then he reminded us, “You still get the same number of votes, but with the slider option, you can now “supercharge” your vote 8x. And you can do this up to 5 times a day if you find something of value you would really like to vote on.”  

And that’s pretty cool. Bots can’t do that. 

You actually have the option of voting as much as you want. But each vote depletes the voting power. You have access to either 100% voting power, 5 times a day, or, 500% voting power, distributed over however many votes your little heart desires. And whales and dolphins can actually choose how much power their votes have. A cool added feature, if you ask me. 

Three reasons I think the new system is going to be better:  

1. It forces whales to distribute their power more carefully and selectively 

2. It gives minnows like me the impression that my vote counts for something when I can visibly see that I added a good .20 cents to a post. It gives me hope and a feeling like I belong to something. There is a psychology to it. I’m not gunna lie.  

3. It makes the ecosystem more organic. I think the top stories are going to continue to be more diverse and high quality because bots will have less influence, and people will have more. And that was the purpose of the change. If it totally flops, then @dan will hear ALL about it. I get the feeling he listens. 

He voted up @timcliff’s Steemit Wishlist from 3 days ago. Albeit, the vote was depleted. But still. He read the damn thing. He reads it. It matters. I like to think, anyway.  

I don't know about you, but I think everything is going to be OK. We can still vote lots. And give pats on the back to friends. And vote on comments. And comment on comments and get voted on those comments. All will be well.  

If you want a better idea of how the new voting system works, and how it benefits minnows especially, check out @rampant's The New 5 Vote System and Why It's Good For Minnows. 

In the meantime, have fun voting!