HF19: Is This What We Want? (Spam Self Vote Galore)
I'll call him out by name.
These are @crypto-p's claimed rewards from the past 10 days - from self upvoting his substanceless spam comments that he leaves to other people's posts every two minutes:
Claim rewards: 100.261 SBD and 101.675 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 93.881 SBD and 61.966 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 114.597 SBD and 59.280 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 126.366 SBD and 70.936 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 42.876 SBD and 30.884 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 36.504 SBD and 23.790 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 59.849 SBD and 35.815 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 28.944 SBD and 21.992 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 49.565 SBD and 33.901 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 76.583 SBD and 43.263 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 40.702 SBD and 29.675 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 51.114 SBD and 35.546 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 39.983 SBD and 25.718 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 40.902 SBD and 28.607 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 28.715 SBD and 20.457 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 43.122 SBD and 32.906 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 108.656 SBD and 54.516 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 39.344 SBD and 19.980 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 46.914 SBD and 24.084 STEEM POWER
Claim rewards: 71.815 SBD and 39.726 STEEM POWER
They add up to about 1240 SBD and 780 SP in rewards.
Yes, the blockchain allows this.
But it also allows flagging for abuse. Do we, as a community, consider this abuse? Or is this what we want Steemit to be?
I'd be interested to hear.
I'm recharging my voting power at the moment, but once it's filled up, I'm going to be flagging. Even though it will lead to retaliation.
But some of us need to have a set of balls between our legs.
Very torn here. I just spent about 3 hours making a deep dive post on wine making. With my photos and all, and i have earned less than a buck in a few hours and hope it gets to 5 before timing out.
BUT
I also thought the whole point of a decentralized network like steemit was that there ARE NO rules and so he isn't actually breaking any rules.
I don't want to fight for a dime I deserve, but I also never ever want to be told how I can or cannot vote....
Telling him he can't do what he wants with his own money and voting power well, that's heading towards socialism and communism and this ain't that but if it becomes that, most of the people I see on here who seem to be anarcho capitalists more often than not, will not dig it and leave.
So this is a very tough call.
I think it boils down to I have the freedom to do the same thing. I also have the freedom to get bigger and its up to me to do it. I'm not jealous of this guy, are you all?
Just food for thought.
Hey sircork, just found this post. It's so funny. And sad.
Can you tell what's going on, you seem reasonable.
As i understood correctly, creator of the post complained about other guy crypto-p who said "hello, nice post, following you" or something like that and upvoted himself, right? (i hope i didn't miss anything).
Okey, i decided to make my own research. Checked his posts, damn that was long.
And i'm offended now! How can he say such things to people..
And i can't stand that! We should unite and stop that nonsence! How can such a cruel person exist, right?
Then i found out that reasonable part of his comments are located on a new steemians blogs who don't have much followers and comments. Trying to build their own follower army and waiting for someone to come in and look at their content. It can be really hard to build your blog at the beginning. He followed everyone of them as promised, so i say it's + than -.
But then.. after a while i checked some of the next-lvl strong whales (business people who rock in investing or something like that and are on the next lvl of badass) with more than 150k steempower. And actually.. they upvote themselves a lot. You ask wtf? I say - yep! Each vote more than 80$. Why no one ever tell them a single word? I have an answer - NO BALLS. But insead you attack someone who never said a single bad word to anybody. You call that balls? Are you sure?
And now i don't even know what's good or bad. This huge post about that guys crypto-p with average vote around 2-4$ and now compare it with 100$+. Why do you care?
It seems that it's just a simple personal grudge against someone who has more steem than you schattenjaeger (no offense). I don't see any concern from you about decreasing of the reward pool or about community. It's clearly an attack because you want so, not because you care about others around you.
In conclusion. it's my own research, strict and based on facts. If you ask me - i'd say he is innocent.
But who am i, i've started on steem not long ago, it's for you to decide.
I have been on a short day trip today, and just got back but I read this with great interest. First of all, thanks for thinking I might be reasonable, that's very kind of you to say!
I read everything you said, and it was actually quite enjoyable. If you post like this too, I'll be your follower for a long time. Super amusing, and likewise, I think you might be pretty reasonable too.
As for your actual opinion expressed after your research? I'd say you nailed it, and you don't need a word of opinion from me to confirm it. Well done.
Looking forward to your posts on less stinky topics :D
Oh no you've read all this. It should've taken quite some time. Sorry about that.
Have a good day :d
I read 300000000 words a second. No worries :D
Bullseye 🏹
There are rules on steemit, it self governs those who steal content, and spam and this guy is spamming so getting his comments flaged is exercising our freedom to say hey your content is garabage.. get it out of this thread
Ok, that's reasonable. But if he adjusts to reasonable comments and upvotes them anyway, what then?
Then nothing. Because he's no longer spamming.
Fair enough. I get your point.
Thank you @sircork
Youre welcome! Whaddid i do?
Epic one :D
I guess you guys liked my comment or you are making fun of me for saying something obvious or something lol i can never tell ;)
This post is about me. You supported me.
I support freedom and if that means supporting you well hell yeah babee. Freedom rules and im glad we apparently agree!
Exactly man!
Have a 100% 6 cent vote for freedom lol
On the surface, this is clear enough... I see something like that, get all riled up and think "HELL yeah, what an abusive JERK!"
But it's generally not that black-and-white. Looking at this differently, we could also say "Wow-- here's someone who's figured out to maximize his returns in a free-market capitalist system!"
Not saying I agree with this kind of practice... just suggesting that if it were Forbes Magazine reporting this, rather than @schattenjaeger, we'd likely have very different perspectives of the same practice.
So this is really a moral or ethical dilemma, more than a functional one. Free markets are inherently about being self-serving... so we get to look at what is the community's purpose here... if any, at all?
Again, this is subjective but the community here is akin to "shareholders" in a company. And-- presumably-- the common interest of the "shareholders" is (ultimately) to oversee and guide the "company" (aka Steemit) towards long term thrival and survival.
Against that backdrop... we could postulate that someone who engages in "abusive comment self-upvoting" is putting personal short term gains ahead of being part of ensuring long term survival. Stated bluntly, it's the "Riches NOW, fork the future!" approach.
In a system that truly works and is functionally self-regulating, the preponderance of the voting power would arrive at a measure of consensus that we are not here simply to "rape and pillage" in the short term, we are here to help direct long term growth. So... again assuming a functional system... pressure would be brought on the "offender" to help them understand that their behavior potentially constitutes "sawing off the branch they are sitting on."
Is flagging the right approach? I don't know. I'm a little more with @lukestokes... let's understand the background, first. Also, as I commented on one of your posts yesterday... maybe the problem isn't "flagging" but the current way flagging works; perhaps the flagging methodology needs to be less individual and more consensus based.
And now, I'm going to be an abusive asshole and upvote my own comment! But not because I want to "make money," but because I don't want it to drown down in the "nice post, upvoted" cloud, having just spent 20 minutes on it. Which is the same reason I upvote many comments on Steemit....
Fair and balanced post. Is it "wrong", for example, for someone with some social power in the outside world to comment on social issues? To "push" politics in a particular direction? To essentially spend some of their social capital to accomplish something they want?
Voting for yourself is a like a little mini pay out. It doesn't make someone else appreciative and therefore more likely to vote for your post in return in the future. It doesn't create bonds between other users or add to your steem power. It just is a way of slowly cashing out.
If I understand it correctly. But I am a newbie.....
I think every time when we see a problem we should observe it from the different angles and only then make a conclusion. or many conclusions.
Thank you, @denmarkguy
I agree it's not that "nice" when you find someone who comments on a post you've made and then upvotes their own comment but not your post :/
I don't personally agree this is something that should necessarily be punished however. The way this kind of behavior is best moderated from my perspective is through showing that it isn't supported or appreciated behavior socially speaking. I for one will for instance not upvote such a comment or follow someone whom I know does not really support me, or anyone else for that matter.
If they do give support and also support themselves by upvoting their own comments, then I don't see a problem with that.
If someone spends $10,000 on a POW mining rig and receives a proportional amount of the block rewards for that coin, no one complains.
If someone spends $10,000 on Steem Power and receives a proportional amount of the block rewards from Steem via self-voting, is that something we should complain about?
There are many ways to look at self voting. I'm not sure it falls into the "abuse" category since abuse implies directly harming someone else. The rewards pool is designed to be distributed according to how those with high Steem Power vote. Sure, some mined early to gain Steem Power, but others invested real money (and lots of it... see my weekly exchange transfer reports). Maybe a few hundred bucks is just a return on their investment? Maybe it's worth some social shaming, not upvoting their content, calling them out as being overly greedy, etc, etc... or maybe we just need to think, "Man, I hope to have a lot of Steem Power some day so I can demonstrate the right way to use it which benefits everyone."
Investors create all the value we enjoy here. I think we should engage them and understand their motivations before we call them abusers.
Well, the issue here isn't just upvoting yourself. It's the spam commenting that accompanies it. He comments the same repeated crap just so that he can upvote himself at 100%. And when he does decide to upvote other people, it's at 1%.
Yes, the code allows it. And that's part of the problem with the latest hard fork and the full linear rewards plus 4x voting power. But that doesn't mean it should be accepted by other users.
For the record: the behavior by this user started before the hard fork. The HF simply makes this more lucrative for anyone who is only interested in lining their own pockets.
Great clarification. I think all spam comments are worthy of flags. We don't need that crap here.
Did you even read my post? Spam was mentioned at the very beginning.
Yes, I did. I'm sorry for not giving that point more weight. I've seen a lot of posts that just complain about others making money when they aren't and at first glance, I thought this was a similar post.
I'm all for other people making different amounts of money. That's just life.
Whatever is doable on steemit is allowed. Obviously some stuff is not okay, but hence flagged.
I am a big fan of rational self-interest and you both can do whatever the protocol allows and feels beneficial to you.
I tend to think it is better for the community to handle such cases by the measures the protocol allows amd they deem fair, instead of tightening the rules within steemit.
Personally, i would let it slip.
Jerry Banfield had a recent post showing how if you use your vote power exclusively to upvote your own posts, you'll double your account's holdings in less than 200 days. It's a HUGE incentive to self-vote, even though it is not necessarily good for the ecosystem as a whole.
I'm with you - just because the code allows it, doesn't mean we have to accept it as a community. There has to be a limit. Although @lukestokes has good points as well. This is a hard problem to solve.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of that Jerry Banfield guy. Seems like a charlatan to me. Don't know him personally, but from what I've seen of his Dash work and what he has done so far on Steemit, I don't think he's very helpful. It's all about getting rich quick with him, but for some reason, everyone wants to throw rewards at him. It's not exactly the kind of voice that should be wanted representing a social media platform if that platform wants to be taken seriously.
Ahh shoot, I haven't done any research about him to be honest - I've only seen a few of his posts. I'll keep what you said in mind - thanks for the warning.
The sad thing is that 200 days to double your holdings can be pretty bad here. I've not been here for quite 365 days yet and I started with 10 steem power. I simply got my holdings by participating and it is many magnitudes greater than doubling my account holdings.
Exactly, I mean @lukestokes coming to steem to reap just the benefits for yourself, that's what I intended to say yesterday, does not create a good community. It's like stealing rewards. How do you see it?
I do understand that any rules we implement at the code level can have good and bad ramifications. I tend to agree with @lukestokes. I believe it is up to the community to fight these things. I caught a person talking to me for a long time on one of my essentially anti-communist posts who was pro-communism and blasting capitalism for all number of things while I watched him up vote every single one of his comments to me. It started at around $3, but our conversation was length enough it was less than $1.50 by the time we reached the bottom. So I finally pointed out that he was kind of doing here exactly what he was complaining about bad capitalist doing. He didn't say anything else after that.
I am a person that tries to solve these problems via words, and by withdrawing my support (votes, follows, witness votes) from people that don't seem to have the best interest of the steemit community at heart and are doing things that impact the rest of us potentially negatively.
I wouldn't mind participating in a hardfork experiment where they removed the ability to up vote your own comments. I understand the visibility aspect of concepts, but I don't think that truly makes a huge difference at this point, and I participate in comments a lot. I also up vote a large amount of the comments that interact with me.
LOL!
I think it depends if upvoting gets too nasty... Everything which helps grow the community into a healthy one... Take a look at our monetary system, a few (intended) mistakes here and there and there you go!
Great point. The nice thing here is we can influence the code as well. Witnesses decide if a hard fork should be implemented. If everyone did agree on a change, witnesses could (in theory) hold Steemit, inc hostage by saying "We won't accept this hard fork until this PR is included." I'm not sure we have that level of consensus on much of anything, but it's a nice thought. :)
One bag fills the other! It is not more!We should show such people the boundaries! It is they who empty the pots!But I will make so much good contributions, so I have the power to flag such people massively! Steem on my friend!!
I don't get why anyone should be allowed to upvote himself. What use case is there for this?
As one example, I upvoted my comment 1% on this post. Now this discussion is the first one someone sees when they read the comments on this post. That's influence. That's "power" given to holders of Steem Power. Adjusting the order of comments is an example of how I think self-voting can be used without it being abusive to anyone else.
I also see a good argument for no self-voting, but due to sybil attack concerns, it's not really something that can be stopped as people will (and unfortunately do) create sock-puppet accounts to upvote their own posts anyway.
Currently the steemit interface defaults to voting up your own post when you create. A comment isn't much different than a regular post as far as the blockchain is concerned, it just has a parent where the other does not. Each comment can be viewed via Steemit as a separate post. So, to be consistent, we might want to also talk about not upvoting your own full posts. ChainBB, as example, defaults to off. You have to go in and vote your post up manually if want to.
Some argue "Well, people put more effort into a post than a comment." That's usually true (and especially true in the case of spam comments), but sometimes I put a lot of effort into a comment and get very little reward for it. Does that mean I should vote up my comment? Is that justified based on the "effort" involved? Now we get to the slippery slope of defining subjective value. :)
Great comment Luke. Upvoting your own comments is like licking your own balls anyway so a bg no no. Unless you really like lcking your own balls of course.
regarding the upvote for your own post. I think its a way to reward yourself for the good content you just have posted. A small token of gratitude from the blockchain for being part of it and actively contributing to it. Unfortunately people will use either one the wrong way eventually.
Bck to thi post: I reckon the guy doing this has another, high level account on steemit itself and is pissing his pants because he is subject of this post. He probably upvoted it too.
Can't my own comment be good content and not ball-licking? Why the distinction?
Sure it can be good content. But it's really up to the original poster if he finds your comment "Worthwile". I think that there lies the distinction. The upvote for your own post is imo considered as a reward from the blockchain whereas the upvote on your comment is more like laughing at your own joke. Leave it to others to decide if your comment is good or not. If it's good people should upvote. Unfortunately it doesn't work like this around here.
I see greed is taking over. Instead of upvoting good content from new writers the whales tend to upvote only the people they already upvote. They have created exactly that what they opposed in the first place: A rich 1%. Congratz, you have all the power. However, what they fail to realise is that the coin only will grow in worth if a lot of it is distributed to newcomers with good content.
And when that fails people will resort to other ways of getting rewarded, like crypto-p for example. In fact, I think I should write a post on this exact theory. On the other hand, no one will actually read it nor upvote it anyway so maybe I should not bother.
Best thing the whales can do is hold on to their power and steem so they can go down with it once they wrecked their own ship. That's the way its going to be if they don't start to redistribute that what they have. And that would be an incredible shame.
They have the power to make this network worth ten times over but choose to stick to what they have. That way it will never grow to its full potential.
Several curation trails have been set up which I believe is a good thing. That way good people will be stimulate the writers to grow. And yes, I am talking about rewards. As for me, I am typing about 5 hours a day and am active the rest of the day (On Steem or Discord) but my rewards suck big time. I literally work for less than 1 dollar an hour. And I am not the only one.
But I know things will change, at least for me. That doesn't mean I get impatient. I get impatient when other people promise things and earn big money out of that promise but fail to follow up to that promise.
WOW... I just got the typing demon. Sorry.
Should have started a post LOL
I've seen similar comments for almost 12 months. All versions of "It's not fair! They are making more than me! No one sees my posts!" You're new here, so it's understandable. I was also a minnow, plus I invested some of my own real money early on. Then I continued working hard to build a following by providing valuable content and seeing the good things here instead of just pointing out the bad. I agree, if you stick around and continue to add value, you will be rewarded. As for me, I'm not interested (yet) in following you because the negativity so far displayed doesn't interest me. It may interest others.
I see that as a subjective opinion, as you said. It's just an opinion.
I was just thinking @cem @lukestokes and others, that our comments should make it into a post!
Totally feeling it, @cem
I checked out his account details and a few things stood out to me:
I hesitate to call him a spammer or crucify him for upvoting himself to maximize his return on that investment in the platform. More investors mean our payouts here are better in the long run, and he's done more in that regard than the typical school of minnows will in a year. Sure, he could be more of a team player, and maybe he will be once he understands the community principles behind Steemit. I don't think call-outs and flagging are necessarily the right means to that end, but hopefully it all works out.
@lukestokes makes some great points, especially about subjective value, in the comments.
Thank you @mtgmisfit, you are absolutely right.
What you said is true.
But flagging is also the right of a stakeholder. Flagging is just voting, just like upvoting. This post is intended to bring conversation with the community.
There seem to be people agreeing with me.
@schattenjaeger I agree and disagree.
Like you said and I agree spam comments are bad.
As for upvoting your own comments and post. I think its fine as long as its allowed by the system.
As @lukestokes stated some people have invested alot of money into this platform and they should profit however the rules allow. Im a miner and I get it.
Upvoting to get higher up in the thread.
Sometimes you can't show your voice to people without self upvote. Your voice can be valuable, but new comments are at the bottom of Mariana Trench.
Yes so true. This is another reason why the self upvote is valuable.
Thanks
Your welcome!
I agree, downvoting is part of the system as well when there's a disagreement on rewards distribution. Many people get too upset about downvoting, but I do see it being used as actual abuse (i.e. harming an individual by purposefully waiting for the last 12 hour window so no other upvotes can impact the payout and then downvoting it to nothing because of personal feelings about the individual with nothing to do with the content itself which the network already voted on and decided to pay out).
And yes, some people will always agree when it comes to "I want that person to make less so I can make more." That doesn't always mean their position is the most rationally defensible one.
But you're calling out an individual. Have you discussed this with @crypto-p to get their side of the story?
Either way, I do think it's a good discussion to have. I do sometimes upvote my comments, but I do so rarely. I did in this case at 1% because I wanted my comment to be at the top of the list. To me, that influence is motivation to stay powered up (in almost a year, I've never powered down).
Yes, I warned him that I would start to flag him. He then threw a hissy fit, as expected.
But how is flagging then sometimes abuse in your opinion, if voting is just the right of a stakeholder? Both are just voting, done for arbitrary reasons.
But that's not even the point, for crying out loud.
The point is in the post: is this what we want Steemit to be? A joke of a platform where people spam shit like "good post" without even reading, just to self upvote?
A platform that looks like a joke that people are embarrassed to show to other people outside of Steemit?
Well, I guess that's not really a problem because people don't want other people here; they don't want other people interfering with their cash cow. The success of Steemit is irrelevant, as long the blockchain can be milked for easy bucks.
Who cares, right?
I've written about this in detail here, if you're interested to know my views.
Many people care. Very deeply, in fact. Steemit isn't perfect and certainly has many challenges to overcome. This is part of being a community and working through those challenges together, hopefully in a respectful manner.
Steemit is what we make it to be.
All due respect mate , but are you aware that the copy and pasting of other people's comments back to them is..like..really obnoxious ?
just saying. thought maybe no one had told you is all : o)
I've been here a year and have posted/commented over 6,000 times. No one has ever mentioned it being obnoxious at all. On the contrary, I think it's extremely helpful to ensure clarity in communication. One of the biggest breakdowns is when people respond to something the other person hasn't said or don't clarify which part they are responding to.
With all due respect, please acknowledge what bothers you personally may not bother others at all and since you joined less than a month ago, your perspective may not be as broad as it could be.
That said, I appreciate your intentions, trying to help me. I disagree with you because I think clarity of communication is really important. Quoting someone else, to me, is respectfully showing them you directly read what they said and have a specific point to make about it.
ok.. yep I see what your saying, however as i'm pretty old and have been interacting with people a very long time , the amount of time I have been on steemit is quite irrelevant. Wheather some one else has acknowledged this habit of yours, or not, is also relevant. As you're probably quite aware few people actually speak their mind on steemit for fear of not receiving an upvote, or even worse a 100% minus vote, I however am not. To increase clarity is indeed a noble endeavor, on that I will agree, but as I work on assisting people with methods of interaction, i find it far more important , to respectfully point out a flaw, because it facilitates clarity.
I feel i should inform you that it can be construed as obnoxious . If there is one, there are always others, just a law of nature. I take no offence, nor do I make judgement, both have no value to me, but as your clearly an intelligent person, with a great deal of knowledge to share, I decided to help you, so that you would not alienate those whom you seek to enlighten , by appearing to be obnoxious .
My point exactly.
I don't agree with you, any system should be fair and if it has bugs like these the just need to be fixed. I know this might sound like a bone-headed comment but stuff needs to be simple.
Please define "fair" in this context using my mining rig analogy. Is it "fair" to get a return on one's investment? I think it's arbitrary to say self-voting of posts is fine by comments is not. Or maybe it comes down to frequency? I think it's not clearly a "bug" as much as a community expectation which is still fuzzy and being figured out.
Yes I'd make a distinction between people who buy their influence and those who earn it. Isn't that what we are fighting banks for? Money for nothing?
Thanks for you thorough comments, I appreciate them.
Self-upvoting makes disproportionally high ROI now. The total token emission is just 7% p.a. , but because account @steemit owning 50% do not vote and many whales do continue with no-voting-experiment, self-upvoters can get much more then just 7% they are sort of "entitled" to.
When you say "7% p.a." what is "p.a."? Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
That's an interesting point about gaining more of a share than their investment would otherwise allocate. Unlike a mining rig with a somewhat fixed return... but I guess even that isn't fixed if a bunch of other people buy mining rigs but for whatever reason turn them off or don't use them effectively.
Interesting way to think about it for sure. Maybe I'll do some blockchain analysis to look at self voting comment rewards over time... that might be really interesting.
per annum
Ah, thanks!
Those people who "turned off their rigs", what was their intention for doing so ? Just to fund self-upvoters ? I doubt it.
I'll suggest another parallel.
Some people have made donations to some charitable foundation. The employees of this foundation are supposed to distribute donations keeping 25% as a salary ( curation rewards ) Some employees decide to keep 100% for own needs.
In my country it's a crime ;)
Interesting perspective. I think you mean someone is given, say, $100 and told to give $75 away and keep $25 but instead they are keeping the full $100? I guess that does make sense.
Not sure there's a way to stop it, but here's an idea: what if the steemit interface gave a visual indication of self-voted comments (red background maybe?) so people would know more clearly who votes themselves up regularly. Might that change anything or bring about some social shaming if the community feels it's not a good activity?
Might be interesting.
I think the biggest question has to be: Where does it leave Steemit if everyone only voted for their own content?
There might be more activity, as you need content to upvote but there is no incentive to make it worthy of reading.
Like many others, I'm torn about the whole thing. It's his stake - everyone here has one, regardless of its size.
Ultimately though, the value in this platform does not come from upvoting spam content. If it decends into that then we've played ourselves.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. A few people self-voting doesn't make a big impact. But when all of the discouraged newbies see how profitable self-voting spam is, they won't be motivated to improve their posts and engage with other users. Why work if you don't have to?
My fear is that the Steemit party is going to go from "super hot orgy" to " just a bunch of dudes masturbating" if we don't focus on the social aspect of this platform. We should discourage antisocial behavior, like farming self-votes.
Test on self voting ....
Not bad ;-)
I'll call that abuse. I am not a fan of the self-upvote for comments. I have done it once or twice to get my comment at the top of the list for more visibility, but in connection curating for the @foraging-trail, to put key foraging information at the top of the comments. I don't feel right doing that, though. I think self-upvotes in the comment stream should require promotion spending, just like post promotions. They should not generation self-rewards.
I agree with this! BUT... it is predicated on a common goal we perhaps share, of maximizing value of the community.
That's not everyone's objective. A lot of people just "want to make money" and they could care a rat's rear end about how that happens, or what they DO to accomplish that.
Which takes us right back to the broader question of what the "greater purpose" of the organism known as Steemit... and is it even possible to reach consensus on an answer to that?
That's the issue at the base of it all, isn't it. But there's several layers of consensus -- the developers because they have to code the rules, the witnesses because they have to accept the code changes, and then us because we have to be willing to create the value within a setting where some folks are exploiting the comment system to generate personal returns without building community.
I'm under no delusion that Steemit the platform exists for us. It exists to demonstrate the value of blockchain as it's being developed. But I don't see how the value of Steem can continue to grow as people simply siphon off funds from other investors. And that affects all of us who are trying to grow the value of Steem -- and our quality participation here does contribute to that value, as we draw people in to use Steemit the blockchain and Steem currency.
Promotion fee for upvotes is brilliant. Sounds like a no brainer!
I would pay a fee like that to get my comment at the top of the list sometimes. Comments are just 'mini-posts' in much of the Steemit accounting anyway. So maybe it wouldn't even be so hard to do.
Me too. I can't really think of any problems with it...
das ist eine der beschissensten methoden geld zu machen, wer groß ist wird immer größer und die kleinen bleiben auf der strecken..... in den arsch getreten gehört so was!!! ich habe fertig!
Upvoted for hearing it in German as well.
As we Dutch say: "De duivel schijt altijd op de grote hoop". (Teufel, immer, scheißt, Haufen should be enough to understand it 8-)
haha.... good!!
This is sopposed to be a social media outlet.
Not a self upvote and get rich place.
People are going to realize that nobody votes for there content because everyone is saving their power for self upvoting.
I personally think the system shouldnt allow self upvotes. They make absolutely no sense in the over all picture.
If you invested heavily in SP. Your reward is greater Curation rewards.
Right now, curation is pointless because your better off upvoting your own content than others.
Whoever is defendong the self upvote position is obviously benifiting themselves.
This free money fountain will collapse if this continues. I assume the drop in price is reflective of what is currently happening here.
My opinion, worth ~0.30 cents ;)
Its not good to abuse the system..people can upvote some of their posts or comments but not many. Rather use the upvote to reward good posts , comments and help others rise.
yes my friend!
welcome