A person can't steal from the pool, they can only allocate their share.
Engagement and friendly users is where it is at, if you want try to pretend you are in a battle of good and evil that is cute, but also ridiculous.
!dramatoken
A person can't steal from the pool, they can only allocate their share.
Engagement and friendly users is where it is at, if you want try to pretend you are in a battle of good and evil that is cute, but also ridiculous.
!dramatoken
Isn't voting a bit more complex than simply allocating a share that you own?
That's up to each stakeholder. I personally manually vote. However, the whole blockchain is designed around DPOS, which means every stakeholder gets to allocate their share to whatever they think benefits their goals.
Whether that is content, users, the SPS, converting potatoes or burning or vote trading. Where there is enough consensus the other other stakeholders can respond with downvotes or upvotes to change that allocation. People can make it romantic and create stories around it... but at the end of the day that is how it works!
A share would indicate that you are awarding a discrete portion of the pool that you own. A direct correlation if you will. In your first paragraph, you imply a direct correlation, and in your second, you imply the game theory of consensus voting to allocate rewards.
We all have the right to allocate exactly the share of the pool we own... What I mean is this... it is perfectly fair in that those who hold stake have exactly as much power as the percentage of stake they own.
Can we do another chart like this that talks about the contribution of actual content a user has submitted on the chain, but in terms of wordcount, and a general "grade" level of that work count?
Words per post, words per comment, etc. :D
I think it would be fun... but I don't have the analytical skill (or will) - but it would be a great way to... troll with facts.
lol, hmm, what would that say? Using more words does not ensure something is a better or even harder... Several users come to mind who take 1000 words to say what could be said in a much clearer matter. :) In fact in most writing classes the goal is to say something in a clear concise way rather than rambling along.
:) I think I know what you are getting at, but I don't find that to be useful criteria. I'm a huge fan of people making their point with some data, or evidence. :)
I'm glad you can understand, because it is difficult to articulate what I mean sometimes!
The key point is that it is not unilateral control as your chart would suggest.
With downvoting (also the curve, but that is a lesser factor usually) there is a consensus calculation that is non-linear and non-unilateral.
Okay? There's plenty of time to be friendly with those that deserve it and a lot more rewards to be given out to those and even more if you use your downvotes on the ones that aren't playing by the rules of the majority.
I can agree on that, and in many cases those situations have been handled.
Yes by a few people, what about those not daring to use their downvotes at all and just keeping their heads down because they know that'll get them constant downvoters back for life. Would you maybe consider those who do it anyway to be in some part of a battle of good vs evil or are they also just pretending?
I don't even think it is close to good and evil. I think often it is a difference of opinion and a lack of clear communication.
:) Many of us used our downvotes, with grace and some feedback long before they were free. I quit using mine because some people got a bit gung ho. I hated seeing investors and some decent users who actually get quite a bit of engagement getting called names and downvoted. But It's just a phase. None of it is that big of a deal or requires terms like theft, etc.
Yeah, I'm glad a few real problems were handled and thank you for the role you played in that...
'Steal' is inflammatory and I would agree with that.
People can allocate 'their' share in a manner which benefits the individual with little to no benefits to Steem. Call it what you like, but it isn't good for Steem.
We really have no evidence of what is good or bad for Steem. There is a direct relationship to price and activity. Which came first the chicken or the egg.
I've seen no evidence on either side, just a lot of opinions... including my own.
If everyone just votes for their own self-enrichment, then Steem's rewarding function is pointless. People are just paying themselves with their own money.
If some people vote for self-enrichment then they are doing so at the expense of anyone who is gullible enough not to.
I happen to think that a major function of Steem being completely pointless or a way to gain personally at the expense of other stakeholders is bad for Steem.
Sure, this isn't entirely objective but it's somewhat close. The logic is solid.
The cases of those voting strictly for their own enrichment are few.
Other than that I agree.
My view is quite different. I see an enormous amount of it still going on every day (as a percentage of the reward pool at least, maybe not relative to raw vote count or post count). The situation is modestly improved since HF21, but not to the point of it being 'few'.
We can certainly respectfully disagree on this perhaps.
First you ridicule the notion of 'good or bad' for steem, then when cornered with the simple logic that supports the notion of something being good or bad for the community you try to recant and claim that the negative that you at first denied is now but marginal. I've heard the same bullshit from you from day one, always incapable or unwilling of grasping the simple logic and undeniable conclusion of "if everyone acted like a self voter" and even though I'm not sure you recognize that you are a serial apologist for abuse of Stake or you truly think that such Abuse is Impossible by some ownership or other such 'principle' yet I imagine it ought to be very confusing to make ends meet regardless of the narrative you hold since either there is such evidence or there isn't, no matter the quantity.
#no-evidence
#nothingtosee
We can have a good idea of what is good for Steem and what isn't, some of it is just common sense.
An account only votetrading and maximizing rewards while that's it's only focus which is now a reason 3 years later he gets 0 engagement on his low effort posts to even justify the rewards with that is surely not going to be good for Steem compared to someone with the opposite attributes.
Yeah, in that case I would agree. 3 years of posting and not having any engagement is something I would consider worthy of downvoting.
@me-tarzan
Just to be clear, the steal part was mainly aimed at users such as flysky who've attempted and for a long time (thanks to bid bots) managed to take a lot of rewards from the pool for whatever it was that steemcleaners is onto him along with his friend dobartim who've been running schemes on discord to trick newcomers and kick those asking too many questions once they got onto them. Taking a quick look at his "poetry" should tell you what kind of content they've vote-traded/bid botted up for ages to get their rep and are stubborn to keep the facade going for ulterior motives than the rewards from what it looks like as that's pretty clear by now they would make more by just curating than attempting to post garbage and get into downvote wars vs the whole community. The main reason I got involved and heard about them was because even when minnows were downvoting their garbage/plagiarism they'd go after them with pitchforks and there were some other users behaving the same after the hardfork: "downvote me and get hit back twice harder" was not something I thought to be acceptable when giving the EIP a try. Luckily most seemed to have understood their actions to have been "bad" and the consequences they faced not just by big accounts downvoting them for these main reasons but also stepping up and countering the malicious retaliatory downvotes but also on their rep and future on the chain. Now there's still a few left who are stubborn. I take it once the price of Steem starts increasing and the curation they're losing due to even using their upvote mana to downvote starts having real value they may backtrack.
The thing is though and what I was pointing out here in the thread is that this is pretty dirty work for those getting in the middle of it and attempting to put a stop to it if you aren't completely passive like someone like @trafalgar or you who just comments and doesn't care about them being downvoted or how it affects those replying to you. Even though these abusers may realize their fault along the way they'll still hold grudges over those that put an end to their ROI fest and might continue to downvote them forever or try hurt them in other ways such as going after all comments on those users posts (like it's happening to me and a few others now) as they have nothing left to lose. It's kind of a dead end now where the only option for them is to either change their ways and hope people notice it before they just automate counter all of their downvotes and dealing with it that way while they rot away in the "deep web" of Steem once communities and SMT's take over or they will power down onto new accounts and start fresh. The latter could be encouraged by bringing their reputations down to 0.
Huh? You're trying a bit too hard with the drama shit lately.
If a person is using mostly dead stake to continue rewarding themselves for low effort content and doesn't get downvoted because of fear of retaliation, or votetrading it's pretty much theft to others who are losing out rewards for not doing the same low effort garbage and just trying to take out as much rewards as possible from the pool the way they are. What is difficult to understand there?
Maybe present your opinions in other ways than facts.