You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes
Let's face it, auto upvotes on author accounts should be stopped completely and only allowed for curation trails that are manually curating and have guidelines/vetting in place - otherwise we'll just go round and round in circles (jerking, lol).
It does seem to be a case where "curating" now is just auto upvote at between 3-5 minutes for max rewards.
Pre HF 21, SBI was a valuable tool and I still think the intentions are great but I agree with what abitcoinskeptic said 100% really.
Rewards should be given in tokens now with sbi rather than steem which would still facilitate the idea of giving/supporting. There are many other ways of doing it around here now since EIP.
Let's face it, that is not possible technically. Not without losing most of the humans too.
Surely just by disabling the feature to auto upvote someone is easy enough to do? No losing of humans needed
How do you see if a click is done by a human or by a script?
I'm not sure that disabling auto votes is possible... after all, how can you know what is an auto vote, a human vote or a human curated trail vote? They look the same essentially... the infrastructure for the auto votes and trails are not integral to STEEM... but are hosted off chain.
Human curating is decent... but also prone to problems of siloing and unfortunately is a system that is weak to corruption as well (PS: not saying that there is... just that the system is susceptible to it). I have seen chats where curators for some projects have talked about quid pro quo "curating" of each other's posts... and also some discussions where people have failed to understand why the concept of conflict of interests is a problem. Of course, this is not every curator... but I only point out that it is good system, but still has it's faults... but I wouldn't burn an entire curator project because of it...
I'm not sure how the tokens side would work... but the main problem is that if there is no economic case for the token it is magic internet money that will trend to zero... tokens based on STEEM derive their value through their utility on STEEM.
The only way would be to have a comment left by the person voting. Similar to the way people want to have reasons for downvotes, reasons for upvotes?
Thing is, if there aren't strict guidelines to follow then we end up in this situation we're in now where there are grey areas everywhere.
And you could easily say the same thing about any money really. It's derived on its value perceived by the sum of those that use it.
I'm sure the debate will go on but we'd be here for a long time.
Still, nice bit of green across the markets hey
Yeah... green is nice! Although, I've been toying around with the idea of dumping a token that just saw a single day 200% run... on the other hand, it just isn't worth my time either! Play the long game...
As for the commenting... even that isn't really assured. You have seen all the automated comments right?
Money is slightly different as it exists and is the principal token on it's own ecosystem. Something similar would be the fact that most currencies need to be denominated and exchanged via the medium of the global reserve, USD. Thus, a tinpot country can issue it's own fiat money... but if people prefer USD then it is game over!
Another more similar idea is the relationship between the ERC-20 tokens and the native ETH tokens...
Anyway, these chats are much more interesting and productive than the complaints in the original post. There is a chance for accommodation and compromise to grow a better ecosystem... rather than roll over and die or I'm not happy!
I think that would depend on how much you'd get for the effort or if it's only going to buy you a Mars bar 😁
Yep and those do my crust in as well. But it's something that's just going to be part and parcel of the digital era seeing as, what, 60%-70% of all Internet is Bots anyway...rise of the machines.
Even USD isn't really backed by anything. It used to be an IOU for gold deposited in the banks but that went pear shaped in the 70s. Now it really is a piece of paper with a number written on it.
So in a way, I guess BTC acts like the situation you just described but for all digital crypto currencies (almost).
This platform is about engagement really. I measure that as comments and interaction with the post created rather than number of votes or STU received. For me, those are bonuses to the comments. Guess it really depends on what the goals are of each individual.
Think we've seen a lot of people leave because they arent willing to compromise
PS: I just thought of something about the guidelines idea... even in the area of law... where there are pretty well defined and strict guidelines, there are gray areas. Only in Mathematics are there no gray areas (even then...)... even in Theoretical Physics, there is still some.
Guidelines are good... but there is always gray!
I think we can sum all of this up with..."humans" 😁