Self-voting user list since HF19 - PART 2 (comments)

in #statistics4 years ago (edited)

This is a follow up of Self-voting user list since HF19. This time we'll look at self-voting stats for comments. Again we're looking at data from June 20th - July 18th 2017 and everything under $100 total rewards from self-voting is filtered. All SBD values are excluding curation rewards. Total SBD is the total SBD a curator assigned to posts+comments.

The following 136 people self-voted $58,440.707 (25.33% of all comment rewards) on comments. When we correct this for curation rewards, the amount can go up to $77.920,943 (33.77% of all comment rewards). The real curation reward depends on the amount of other curators that voted on their comments as well.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this article shouldn't be perceived as 100% accurate. When you spot significant errors, please leave a comment. Also keep in mind that the full list below is a raw data dump. In no way is it implied that all cases are considered problematic. It's for you to decide what you think about it and what to do with the information. The reason for names being included is that this is public information and others will release (and some already have released) the information independently.

Top 10 by SBD

NameTotal SBDSBD on own comments% SBD on own commentsComment self-votes

Top 10 by selfishness

NameTotal SBDSBD on own comments% SBD on own commentsComment self-votes

Full list

NameTotal SBDSBD on own comments% SBD on own commentsComment self-votes

Don't forget to follow, resteem and browse my channel for more information!


I think all the "self voting lists" and the entire issues is completely over-shadowing all kinds of other work we should be doing on the Steemit platform.

To quote @smooth:

"Someone who buys SP and then selfvotes is not 'draining' anything and at best can get back a portion of what was put in. It causes no harm at all."

Investors are the ones who underwrite all of the rewards on this platform. If you are not an investor, or are only a smaller investor, you need to focus your efforts on creating inspiring content that makes investors want to give their money to you. Whatever else they do or don't do with their money (including self-voting) is not your concern and does not harm you in any way. Nevertheless, you do have a downvote that you can use to disagree with what you think are underserved rewards. I suggest using it."

"The idea of creating 'lists of shame' and demonizing people is divisive, creates a hostile and toxic environment attractive to no one, and serves no useful purpose. There is no way to tell from these lists whether the content is deserving of the rewards or not. The only way to tell is by actually looking at the content, and if you think it is undeserving, downvote it."

"Your own statistics show that self-voting is awarding about 8.5% of the reward pool. I don't find that suggestive of any problem whatsoever. It is probably a very reasonable number given that the current parameters give people 10 full power votes to make per day. Thus one is being applied to the voters' own content and nine to others' (on average, of course). Seems fine."

I see my name in the list above, but I'm not clear on what it is really saying. Total SBD is 270, SBD on own comments is 135...what does that mean? I upvoted my own comments for 270 or does it mean I upvoted for 135? Also, does this take into account any other people that may have upvoted my comments? I'm not challenging the data, but trying to understand if I did something wrong in that 1 month time frame.

As explained in the description above the tables, Total SBD is the amount of rewards you have put on all posts+comments (self and others).

It does not take into account others that voted on it, it is exclusively what your own vote was worth and what you received as author reward on payout.

Got it...makes sense. In that case, your data is showing that I should be self upvoting much much much more than I did the past 30 days. Tell me if you think I'm way off base here...

I read somewhere that after the last HF, a user can double his/her Steem Power in 100 days if they self-upvote in the most efficient way (I think @JerryBanfield did a post on that). That equates to about 30% return for a 1 month period.

Your data shows I earned 270 SBD, which is about 216 Steem. My account has roughly 12k Steem, so I earned only 1.8% over the 30 days from self upvotes. Feels like I'm not self upvoting enough.

I think your data is useful, but I think it would be helpful to compare self upvote earnings to account Steem power or maybe compare to how much upvotes you do for others vs yourself or some other way so that people with a lot of Steem power are not penalized.

I understand what you're saying, but that's exactly the wrong mindset. Self-voting is selfish behavior that only takes from the platform. The more people that do it, the more likely it is that STEEM is going to be worth much less.

I personally would like to see people to self-vote under 10% of total rewards on average.

There is a time to self-vote, and there is a time not to...

I agree, there should be a community consensus on how much self-voting is acceptable, and how much is too much.

After we reach that ideology, it should be programmed into the system to disallow more than a certain amount.

Not every comment someone makes deserves to be rewarded.

At the same time, I make comments ever now and then that are hugely important to the topic discussed, and I'd like to see them get a few positions above the junk comments so they are more likely to be read.

Well the protocol is designed to let the free market decide how much all content, including comments, is worth. But in reality there are wayyyyyyy too little users and the distribution of SP is wayyyyyyy too bad currently for that to be the case.

Sure, I'm not against reducing it 10% of total. But that alone doesn't solve the problem if people self upvote themselves 10 times at 100% power....while upvoting others 100 times at 1% power. That's why I think we need to look at what SBD a person provides to self vs others.

Also, if you think what I'm doing is selfish...then I should just power down and sell my Steem. Why should I or anyone else buy Steem if I get singled out for 1.8% when someone with low Steem power can get 30% by self-upvoting? And what about all the bots selling their voting power?

Yes i mean 10% SBD max on self of total SBD voted. But i'm personally doing 0% self-voting since 2 weeks.

Having SP gives you:

  1. Over 1% interest per year
  2. 10%+ ROI from curation rewards per year
  3. Power on the network to curate

If someone thinks that insanely high profit is not enough and decided to also add self-votes to that, then that's bad for the platform.

You know what else is bad for the platform? Continuing to take money out of the platform like you are doing. If the top 10 whales did that, Steem price would crash to 5 cents....which would hurt in attracting more people to the platform.

This public shaming when at least half of the people on the list aren't abusing anything is not good for the platform. Some analysis of the data is needed and probably a different approach. If you were trying to pursue those people to start abusing the system or start moving money off Steem, you have probably succeeded.

How am i taking money out of the platform? I completely stopped self-voting which almost nobody is doing yet. It also took me 4 days to create the database that produced this data. It's valuable content, not everyone is a programmer you know.

The disclaimer clearly states that it's just a data dump so it's for you to decide what's abuse and what's not. You are highly overreacting, we're progressing towards a solution. It's a way more difficult problem than you think.

Harassing people will degrade this site. Get the stick out of your ass. I am up voting this comment.

Then don't harass people, problem solved :)

Self-voting is a problem that will degrade this site, that's what people don't get. The algorithms should change.

Voting for your own comments can have a reason like, pushing your comment a bit higher on the ladder.
'Abusive voting' where people vote on there own comments with less then 5 words is a real problem though.

Upvoted... I don't like what is going on, but it does make sense as the foundation of crypto (BTC) is finite like gold is and that will trigger a mindset of scarcity. Especially when times are down and the steemprice is going sideways as we await August 1st since many BTC owners are putting it back to cash at least for now (they may lose the whole lot).

I'd like this to not be the case as many would. But we are in early stages and there is much evolution to be had.

I agree though with some of the comments here which is that selfishness will inhibit us where as giving will enhance block chain and move us further towards the goal of decentralisation.

I tried to explain on these two posts: Not trying to spam. I just did not want to be too long winded here.

I never voted my comment. After this article I think I will begin to do so. Indeed, right now.
(Great article but does not take into account how much Mr. X earns when he votes the comment made by his profile Mr. Y.)

If, with multiple accounts, nothing can be done, this can be very, very problematic ....

Maybe using some kind of Captcha technology could be very useful. The problem is not really human self-voting, but bots self-voting. They make the whole steemit experience very boring.

That's impossible with blockchain technology since you can just write your own software to communicate with the server. Captcha's are client side only.

And yes I realize that self-voting can be quite profitable ;-)

Indeed, but at the cost of everyone else.

Let's engage these people in a dialogue.

Bringing this attention that @calamus056 did might be working. I picked one user at random out of the list:

It appears he was giving himself $1.00 an upvote regularily... and now recently he's been tapering it off.. many of his comments now show 0 upvotes. You have to keep scrolling down his comment list and you will see where he was voting himself up a lot... often for very simple comments.

So if this one user is doing it less, perhaps other users are starting to do it less.

Either way @calamus056 keep these lists coming. :)

** I've resteemed this post.

It's possible he is waiting 5-6 days to upvote his own comments so he can better avoid detection because of how it is viewed nowadays.

To catch a scumbag, you must think like a scumbag!

Agreed. We need a hypothetical mathematical model that demonstrates the damage done over time to Steem through self-voting at different degrees:

  1. Percentage of users doing it 0-100%.
  2. Frequency of ave user doing it 0-100%
  3. Measured impacts on Steem economy in terms of growth of:
    A. Steem users,
    B. STEEM value
    C. Steem morale
    D. Any other metric
    We need to make our case.

Let's compile a comprehensive list of all possible arguments against self-voting on one's own comments. Please reply with whatever arguments you know of....

There's only 1 needed though: it doesn't add anything to the platform (except when we very occasionally do it to get our important comment higher).

I hope I will never see my name here :D

It's fully under your control.

Good stuff. It's great to share to the community who the selfish are. How did you retrieve this data?

Days of programming, gathering data, running database queries and making reports.

wow...lookit all that money.
maybe I should start self voting?
seems to work.

It works until the platform blows up, that's the whole problem :)

You just have to realize that 0% self-voting and actively curation already nets you 10-20% ROI per year. That's insanelyyyyy high and has to be overcome by continous new investors in STEEM. When people are selfvoting for 100% ROI per year, there have to be pretty much 5 or 10 times as much money coming in to keep the price equal.

Also the more people self-vote, the less authors are earning and the less value the platform has for potential future investors. You need to look at the whole picture. It's quite complicated. But one thing is simple, nothing good will ever come from selfishness :)

I like your point! I've been here for something more than two months; I believe I'm doing ok, but I honestly sometimes feel I'm wasting my time....thinking about buying steems to increase my SP a bit, but it's impossible to reach more than few cents most of the time.
When I see those dolphins and whales sometimes I feel like they are the only ones getting all the cake.

As a content creator you need to work really really hard for at least 6 months to get in the top 10% popularity it seems. But that's a different problem, that has to do with the amount of below average content people have to go through.

Then why is "auto-vote" this post written in? It is (or was) the default when writing a post.
I take it you've never read 'the virtue of selfishness" and how alturism is evil?

How is self voting any worse than having a bot do it for you? OR having multiple accounts and having them vote for you?

Nobody is refuting that they're all just as bad :)

how is self voting any different than any other kind of voting?
perhaps no one should vote at all?
think of the poor rewards pool!

Because with self-voting you only take away from the platform, when you vote on others there's at least a chance they feel valued enough to stay, promote steemit because of their positive experience and maybe even invest. Every single cent you vote on yourself is lowering the value of the platform indirectly.

You also don't know what the true value of your content is when you vote up yourself, because you influenced it.

every single cent I vote PERIOD is the lowering the value of the platform well as every vote YOU make or anyone makes.
you can't have it both ways.

and once again..BOTS..bots can't read, they can't evaluate, they have NO CLUE what something is worth.
yet they vote....more often than people.

bot voting is an order of magnitude worse of a 'drain' than self voting..

Nope, if the bot votes on others it's fine.

The reward pool isn't the value of the platform. The quality of the content and how appropriately it is rewarded is where the value of the platform comes from. There's 100's of thousands of Dollars that can be spread out better to the content creators. $100,000 worth of self-votes is a good place to start reallocating those rewards to people that make the platform valuable.

These questions are answered in the Steem whitepaper.

oh? The whitepaper has been up dated to take into considerations hard forks 1 thru 19?

The white paper deals extensively with the question of self voting.

You already do. And you are quite openly proud of it bro.

I really want to make this list !!!

Do you have any idea what happens when a minnow upvotes a dolphin's comment and then the dolphin upvotes his own comment?

Just say'n ... This day can't come fast enough for me!

Can you please simplify what you're talking about. It's hard to know what people are thinking and not all people speak English as their first language...

You don't want to make this list, it's a list of self-voters that voted more than $100 on themselves on comments in a month.

Yes. I do want to make this list.

Let's just pretend I have the power to upvote my own comment by $100 or more.

Let's pretend a minnow comes along and upvotes my comment first.

If I throw more money at the comment via an all evil self-upvote, the minnow gets a better curator payout ... much better. Or maybe it's a school of minnows. All the same, the minnows get more curation pay out.

Yes, I could upvote a comment or a post by the minnow instead. And I may just do that, too. But, there are times when I just really want to say "thank you for your upvote on my specific thought" by increasing the minnow's curation payout.

So. basically, I just used a bunch of words to explain what happens when a self-upvote is used to upvote an upvote by a minnow. See?

Equally important, by the time I reach the point of being able to reward myself $100 per upvote, I will have paid bloody well for the privilege to do whatever I want with my share of the voting pool.

IF self-voting from my allotted portion of the voting pool is over-draining the voting pool, then either the "developers &/or powers that be" are failing to fill the pool full enough or someone is failing to divide the portions correctly.

Therefore, because this list is not really a fix to the cause of the problem, this whole conversation and unwarranted policing by the list, is beating the wrong end of the donkey and it's not going to make the parade move down the road more quickly. There's just going to be a lot of bumps on the donkey's head and some are surely going to get kicked by the donkey. So. Really. A carrot on a string might work much better.

And, I repeat myself. I can't make it onto this list fast enough.

Thank you for your interest in clarification. I hope this helps.

What if a "minnow" voted on content that wasn't published by you and then you vote on that? Wow brilliant!

Anyway, you're right that this isn't a solution but at least it starts a discussion and increases awareness.

People can indeed do what they want with the current implementation, but self-voting is self destructive behavior so it's not smart to do it. Me and others want a protocol change to increase incentive to vote on others so it's more obvious that self-voting isn't beneficial behavior.


Very interesting data. More than ever, we need to seriously look at these proposals here and (the short version) here.

We cannot eradicate such behaviour (just think about what you would do in that situation) but we can decrease it so that it has limited impact on the whole Steemit ecosystem.

perhaps the next hard fork could keep people with a certain amount of SP to lockout self voting?

Nope that's really unfair. It's not about the money, it's about the percentage.

Besides it's impossible to prevent self-voting with multiple accounts anyway.

Good point. We need to appeal to common sense with a public edu campaign. To be effective we need a hypothetical mathematical model that demonstrates the damage done over time to Steem through self-voting at different degrees:

Percentage of users doing it 0-100%.
Frequency of ave user doing it 0-100%
Measured impacts on Steem economy in terms of growth of:
A. Steem users,
B. STEEM value
C. Steem morale
D. Any other metric

We need to make our case.

I agree. I think the percentage is the main thing whatever your view of what's acceptable.

Here's the tool I was working on yesterday, in case you didn't see it:

Very useful indeed. Thanks. I don't like to waste upvotes on people who excessively upvote themselves.

Good point on percentage. If you want to upvote to bump up a post you can give it 1% instead of 100%.