Steemit Game Theory: Community Members vs. Self-Voters vs. The 'Police Stake'
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that self-voting is good or bad. I'm merely trying to understand and predict behaviour within Steemit's incentive structure. The basic assumption is that all users act in their own self-interest and with (what they believe to be is) their best possible strategy.
Peace,
dan-atstarlite
Interesting analysis @dan-atstarlite, which certain begs further thought.
I would consider myself a "community member." I would also submit that community members and self-voters could be divided by a different metric: long-termers vs. short-terms (as someone else pointed out). Metaphorically speaking, I am less concerned about being able to "buy dinner" today than I amabout being able to eat for the next five years... so the strategy I apply to using Steemit is how to (locally) make a success here for five years and (globally) what can I do to help ensure Steemit thrives in the long term.
The next thing I look at is the actions of the "Stake Police." No judgment here, just the assumption that the Stake Police would focus on who they perceive as a "threat." Well, since the "SP" seems all wrapped up in shutting down spam, botnets and self-voting, evidently that's where the perceived "threat" is coming from. Again, that's just observing what's in front of me.
Now, if I step out and take the "50,000 foot overview," Steemit is not my first rodeo. I've been on user-generated content sited with "rewards" for almost 20 years. HISTORY tells me that "short term exploitation" of such sites-- in essence-- KILLS them. Drives them into bankruptcy, in short order.
Now, Steemit is on the blockchain so there's no "going bankrupt." The Steemit "version" of that pattern I have observed (allowing "short term thinking" to dominate) is instead called "Steem becomes yet another 'shitcoin' worth 1/2c" Which-- as a community member/long term thinker is absolutely a "must avoid."
Thanks for a thoughtful point of discussion!
This is a discussion that been talked about a lot lately. My feelings are very simple on this subject. A member who has either bought or earned their Steem Power has the right to do whatever they feel is right with their Steem Power. When Steemit attached it's self to Steem, a crypto currency, it became a financial asset, and nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do with their finances.
Dan...I need you to make another song. The hard fork song is climbing the charts. That was such a fun post. LOL
lol yeah that song was fun to do! More songs coming early august!
😝
Hi @dan-atstarlite I've published an article about you, check it if you can, thanks.
29 Best Steemians Of The Day To Follow 29th July 2017
https://steemit.com/blog/@jzeek/29-best-steemians-of-the-day-to-follow-29th-july-2017
Agreed!
I agree that the community will win out in the end. I think it's fine to do some self-voting especially on your posts but not using all 10 votes each day on your own comments. Maybe limiting your self-voting to less than 25% of the voting you do?
I say... if you've created something of value and believe that it's going to add value to others... than feel free to up-vote it accordingly, especially in situations where you believe up-voting it will give it more exposure.
What I like about Dan-atstarlite is that his videos are about Steemit as a "Culture" (as opposed to being focused on technical "How-To" although "Culture" and "How-To" overlap frequently). As a new Steemian, these issues aren't obvious, bc the entire system has not become second nature to me yet. I feel like I've moved into a new country and have to learn the new customs, and to a certain degree, that's really what joining Steemit is.
But when you first join you see the "up vote yourself" check mark and so it seems obvious to do it, but when you learn more about this system, you have to think more about how it affects other people and the community as a whole.
Do the "Community Category" of people find any amount self voting acceptable? I see myself in that category. But there's also the advertising theory. If you've done a piece art or blog that means a lot to you and you want others to see it, it seems reasonable to upvote yourself "to get noticed" just as an advertiser would since a dollar amount next to a piece of work gets you noticed.
Although if that's case, I suppose you could do a 20% vote instead of a 100% for example (just thinking out loud in written form here). There's probably a minimum amount of money you need to get noticed, and at the end of the day, its the quality of the work that will matter the most. I think the Community will work that out though.
But it's important to have the discussion and understand how your actions affect another and the community as a whole.
These videos get you to think about Steemit as a Community and a Culture, which is actually very cool to me.
My personal opinion is that voting on your own posts (not comment) at 100% will probably always be ok with the community unless you're posting complete trash. The community will probably only get upset with users who are adding no value to the community. My thinking is... if you've created something of value (whether it's a post or a comment) feel free to upvote it so it get more exposure.
There's for clarifying. I don't feel as bad now. I voted on my drawings but never on comments. That 0.01 is a start. :) This shit is so awesome though. I'lm just thankful I found this site. I feel like joined a capitalist anarcho commune all in one.
I'm also of the mind that if you just spent 15min-1hour building a post that you feel is good content... You've earned your upvote? You deserve at least that much for you're efforts lol. Also, I think that more people tend to check out a post that already has some monetary value showing on it.
Nice post, follow for follow, check out this unrelated link... And I'll up vote my own comment too😄, I had an extra one because I didn't even up vote the article I read (/sarcasm)
I'll upvote this even though I didn't actually read the comment ;)
Really great analysis!
I guess that different groups of investors are interested in different time-scales too, and this is another thing that determines which category they fall into.
Short-termists will probably be more inclined towards self-voting than those more interested in the longer term. Because of this, reducing the power-down rate so it takes longer to withdraw money, would probably reduce self-voting. It would obviously drop the price in the short-term, but I'd be happier if the power-down rate was six months rather than three.
It would be interesting to have a variable power down options for users such as 13 weeks, 26 weeks, 52, weeks etc.
I agree. This wouldn't seem to have so much resistance from investors, and would at least show how many people were powering down at the maximum rate, giving more clues to investor sentiment.
That's a good point about the "time-scales". The power down window use to be 2 years and there's always ongoing debate about changing things like that. Only think is that it's a lot easier to shorten the "lock-up period" on existing investor than to lengthen it.
Yeah, it might be politically impossible. Maybe changing the software to add one week every month to the power-down period would work over time, without huge disruption. It would allow short-term investors to leave more gradually.
I don't see what's so wrong with promoting yourself. But everyone's got an opinion. And it's easy to look down on others when there is a power system. We're all trying to get by. Nice post man.
lol @ the first reply.. I am mostly a community member, but I don't mind flagging things from time to time.. I also think if you make a post and take your time, its fine to upvote it. Comments, not so much. Let other people decide if your comment is worthy.
You didn't mention enough that the community members, and the self voters are the two who are ending up on top.. The 'stake police' get no short term rewards, if they win every person who has Steem wins.. They are the Gandhi here, you yourself say they are needed.Their only reward is the success of Steem, increasing the value of their stake by destroying the ability to give themselves money. They are gaining the least and often times risking the most. They are trying to increase the value of the steem for the community and the self voters, while wasting the money they could give themselves checking the 'bad actors'..
This is a good point. I imagine that the police stake is mostly whales who realize that the best way to increase the value of their account is by acting in ways that raise the price of STEEM rather than in ways that gain them more STEEM. But eventually they may need more incentive.
Upvoted and Resteemed :-)
Thanks 😁
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Are you happy with your Apple Earpods? I'm not sure if I should get them;).
I'm totally with you that the future of Steemit will be to keep the community safe and secure.
Have a great day!
I'm super happy with the Earpods... but I use headphones all the time so for me it was worth it. It's really nice to not have cords hanging all over the place!