RE: My understanding and thoughts regarding this ongoing witness battle
Thank you for sharing this opinion.
Many people were nervous that the Korean community is confused. Some of them were saying ignorant things. This post demonstrates a clear understanding of the situation as I see it.
I am now worried about potential repercussion: obviously I was not an ardent supporter of the 22.2, and I belong to a minority group (Korean). Isn't it possible that some people from 22.2 community attack me (downvoting, etc) or even freeze my account?
I was excited when I found Steem was bought out but I wish it was anyone besides Justin Sun (you mentioned his rude attitude behaviour), he is infamous for this crude attitude (Actually, the blockchain is like the wild west and Justin is a wild cowboy). I didn't know about 22.2 until after they did it, but I realized after it was done, they needed support. I was very upset the exchanges got involved (that is definitely a legal issue, those exchanges are registered in a country with the law).
I see the issue with the Steemit Steem as whether it is custodial trust (Steemit is the manager) or private property (their decision). I tend to think investing in the blockchain is dangerous because of poor regulation (there is no global authority). Possession is the most important. The reputation of Steem was irreversibly harmed by the actions of the witnesses and then harmed again by Justin.
I am also nervous about the potential of being attacked again and again. However, this threat is the nature of the Steem blockchain. We are all nervous about it moving forward. I will change a lot of my witness votes after this is done.
And 22.2 community led a campaign asking for votes. These was even a case where they were clearly buying votes: CALL TO ACTION! EARN UPVOTES TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES
Actually this really shocked me. Your perspective on this issue is really interesting for me. I thought of it as an event or mission. I never thought to buy witness votes was an issue.
It is ironic, I read the 4 SCT points. The only one I am strongly against is the removal of downvoting. I downvote all the time when posts are flagged for breaking rules such as the purchase of votes or really rude or stealing and lying (Don't worry I do not downvote the Korean community). It's sad I don't realize buying witness votes is a much more serious threat than buying upvotes.
I will forward your opinion on that to my friends in the SFR downvote community and ask them to condemn it as an extremely serious action.
I hope there is a good solution, too.
thank you very much for the reply. I am actually neutral about buying votes, but I found it uncomfortable when someone blames others for vote selling and he himself does it "when necessary".
I agree on the neutrality of buying votes. One should definitely not be compelled to upvote or downvote. Also exchanging a post-vote (inflation reward) for Steem is a financial transaction for the people doing it. It only becomes moral when thinking about the reward pool as some kind of altruistic thing (belief more than ethic).
"When necessary" is really interesting. It is a political propaganda tool. Need or panic can lead to irrational and morally compromising decisions. For example in Korea, there is a serious Corona Virus outbreak. Businesses can choose to remain open because the economy is really important. Churches are asked to close (modern society turns away from God in times of need). Outdoor political protest can get a special fine (yikes!), outdoor community and sports events are cancelled. However, amusement parks are open to visitors.
Compromising and deciding on morals and ethics is part of being in a community. Very few humans are consistant and logical.
곰돌이가 @glory7님의 소중한 댓글에 $0.029을 보팅해서 $0.013을 살려드리고 가요. 곰돌이가 지금까지 총 7552번 $99.991을 보팅해서 $102.102을 구했습니다. @gomdory 곰도뤼~
I don't think the voting for witnesses was buying votes, as they were not told who to vote on specifically, just to vote. Obviously, who they "should" vote on was implied - but not an explicit mandatory condition. Jerry Banfield sold votes for witness votes, so did frystikken i think back in the day.
I see these types of posts as a call to action, in the same way that Dan has done it to get support for exchange listings and blockchain competitions many times earlier.
Phew! I thought I had lost my moral compass (honestly). Thanks for helping me to find it.
You are right on a closer look, this is more like a 'rock the vote' campaign. It does need to be kept in check. And yeah, it was implied.
However I do wonder, would you get an upvote if you voted Tron Sock Puppet 1~20 and screen shoot that (balls of steel :)
In many countries, people are paid to donate blood or given free stuff and volunteer hours. Is this unethical to sell your body elementals? In the case of upvotes for steem that is like a financial exchange and the downvote is only annoying because it reduces the value of the exchange.
EDIT:
yeah strongly implied is mildly putting it.
It was very clear and explicit that the author told who to vote and who not to vote. Either proxy him or vote the list he wrote. Let me quote:
Well... technically it doesn't say who to vote on. it says to maximize the votes, we need to vote for the same, but not who the same were and the 22-42 would have been changing. The proxy is a choice to make. Either way, I think the person would have got votes.
Are they not sockpuppets that threaten the decentralization of the chain, something that nearly every user on the platform disagrees with?
And speaking of the disagreement. If you and others did disagree with this particular call to action and the votes that were handed out, you would have been able to null the votes through downvoting for disagreement of rewards. That is what they are for.
I do not see this is votebuying as it was completely opt-in - it is definitely a call to action though and like I said, @theycallmedan and others have used this many times before to gather support for community benefits. No one complains if it is to get a listing on an exchange, but it is a problem to defend a dPOS chain from centralization?
It seems that you view this in a very different way. If you think that asking for proxy in exchange of vote ( "Prove your votes below to earn a nice sized upvote from me! Either PROXY ME ..." ) is okay ("choice to make"?), well, I guess we don't need to talk about this anymore.