The rational and moral justifications for self upvoting - Why I upvote my own posts and encourage most people to do so (within reason)
I'm seeing a new feud going on highlighted by certain posts Whales Self-Voting Stats, Mmmm Yeah Baby, Put It In My Reward Pool where people are being accused of "Reward Pool Rape". Some of these people are people who read my blog such as @kevinwong, @trafalgar, etc... In this post I'll weigh in on why I think it is justifiable for a blogger to upvote their posts and explain why I do it myself.
The rational and moral justifications for self upvoting
The people who are complaining about self upvoting and arguing about the numbers involved are not looking at the big picture. Every account holder has some required income which they must continue to main in order to maintain the account and continue to post. There is in my opinion a reasonable range which can be measured as estimated SBD income marked by the transfers either to an exchange from their wallet indicating spending or marked by the amount of SBD they've earned from self voting. Self voting in my opinion is morally justified to be used when income for an account is below a certain threshold.
What are some possible thresholds?
If I'm going based on myself then it's the amount of income which would allow me to pay my bills (including taxes), maintain my health (have 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, etc), and facilitate my pursuit of happiness. New users would say it is selfish to want to fund your blog by self voting and this would be true if 100% of all votes come from self voting because it would indicate that the blog is not producing any value for anyone. If no one really reads the posts or if the quality of the blog is very low (just a bunch of random pictures copied from elsewhere) then of course people can make an argument that the blog isn't producing any value for anyone and so it's "bad" to self vote that kind of post.
On the other hand, if the blogger has put forth time and effort into posting and there are a fan base of readers who are looking at, commenting on, or interacting with these posts, then in my opinion this provides all the necessary moral justification for self voting. The post clearly has value because some other account holders are interacting with it. This becomes obvious as the blogger develops enough of a reputation that known well bloggers comment on their posts.
I set my threshold based on:
- Cost of living (including tax).
- Cost of pursuit of happiness (which is how much it costs to be happy)
The cost of living differs depending on where I'm living at the time. If I'm in the United States then the cost of living is within a particular range which can be predictable. If my account is earning SBD beyond the typical cost of living then in my opinion the reward pool protectors union has a moral justification to ask why I'm upvoting myself far beyond what it costs to maintain my status as a blogger.
The cost of pursuit of happiness is more subjective. This too has a range. Below is a quote based on the scientific evidence for what that is:
Life satisfaction costs $125,000 in Australia, $105,000 in North America, and $100,000 in Western Europe – but only $70,000 in Southeast Asia, $45,000 in Eastern Europe, and $35,000 in Latin America.
Globally, it's cheaper for men to be satisfied with their lives ($90,000) than women ($100,000), and for people of low ($70,000) or moderate education ($85,000) than people with higher education ($115,000).
Based on the studies we have these two thresholds:
- High $125,000
- Low $35,000
So if an account holder is in North America and has earned over $105,000 in SBD then in my opinion the Steem Reward Pool Abuse Union has a moral justification to make a fuss. If an account is literally pulling out $20,000 a month from the reward pool then even I would have to say perhaps they should consider slowing down. It is of course up to the individual how much they decide to pull out particularly if it's from their Steem Power but if it is from the Reward Pool then those who pull out more will inevitably look worse than those who pull out less.
The range between $125,000 and $35,000 in my opinion is the typical range which any account could earn without having to give any moral justification. If an account is to earn $125,000 a year, this is about:
$62.50 per hour
or
$10,415 per month
What this means is that anyone making less than roughly $10,000 per month from blogging in my opinion is morally justified and does not have to give any reason for why they self upvote. This is particularly true in the case where they actually blog seriously, have a following, and have provided (and continue to provide) value to the community.
Conclusion
- Self upvoting in my opinion is morally justified in cases where the total amount being earned per month is reasonable.
- Reasonable is defined by cost of living and life satisfaction cost (based on scientific studies).
- As long as bloggers who self upvote are providing value in return then the Steem ecosystem is getting something out of it.
So the conclusion is that the morality or immorality of self upvoting is determined by how much money overall per year an account is earning. High earning accounts really have less justification morally than low earning accounts. A high earning account would be an account which earns beyond the "reasonable" threshold as determined by scientific studies. If it were my account and I were earning $10,000 a month I would not bother upvoting my own posts (particularly if people complain about it). If on the other hand I'm earning less than say $5000 per month then in my opinion it is completely moral for me to self upvote so I would do so for sure. In other words morality exists on a spectrum and is mediated by public opinion.
Public opinion vs personal goals, where if personal goals are not being sacrificed (pursuit of happiness, ability to pay rent and taxes) then listening to public opinion is often the better idea than ignoring it. On the other hand if you're not able to meet personal goals and public opinion is obstructing the pursuit of happiness then it may make sense to seek to change public opinion if you've got enough influence to do it.
I'm totally agree with you!
exactly the truth! You really have explained the essence of things in clear and simple words.
I don't see anything bad in self-voting as well, especially if the situation requires it.
For example, my experience - I've taken delegation and I have paid for it (for me and my profit from steemit it's really big money, for my country - as well), I have calculated my profit from taking it, but it's cryptocurrency and it's not stable, and I got misfortune-( Prices fell very much, steemfollower doesn't work now, and all my plan was just destroyed!
So i was just shocked, I just would lose money spent for delegation, and I started self-voting as the only way to improve situation somehow.
My friends tell me it's wrong, and I can be flagged for it. I worry about it of course, but what should I do? I just want to return my money back, profit is lost already-(
That's why you're absolutely right! I see your post in the right time! It's like support for me now.
When people really need it, but they are active voters for other steemians as well, then selfvoting is really justified.
Thank you!
Well that is pretty true ! If a whale is not doing anything else on the platform except posting low quality content and voting itself, then it can be blamed but people who are helping others as well do NEED to help themselves!!
Because i believe that A person who can’t help themselves can’t help others! Self comes first !! Infact I believe being selfish isn’t bad but thats an overall different tooic then !!
But we need to justify ourselves sometimes to shut people’ Mouth ! You did the right thing by posting this @dana-edwards !!
And thank you for visiting my blog, up voting and resteeming my travel post!
It means a lot !!
Thanks for your support!
It hereby proves how important you are for the steemit community and for uplifting minnows.
Keep up the good work and keep supporting All those who are trying to bring a change :)
The fact that you and others interact with my posts is one of the reasons which justifies me upvoting my post.
Indeed :)
You made a very viable point, I could see things clearly from your perspective. A blogger having to earn $10,000 dollar a month isn't a bad idea cos they are a whole lots of bills to be paid and others expenses needed to run a home. I totally agree with you
It is different for everyone but at the high end of the spectrum $10,000 a month is necessary while at the low end it is significantly less. $10,000 a month is actually around $60 an hour so when you think about it like that then perhaps it has a different meaning. Also to be considered is taxes, tax liability does exist even if most people in crypto aren't attempting to pay their taxes. The fact is, 30% or more of that $10,000 could end up going to taxes leaving something else entirely as actual spendable income.
There are ways to become efficient while blogging but this is why I said it's a range not a definite number. I can only speak for myself but I'm no where near $10,000 a month, or even at $5000 a month income at this point in time. I doubt most bloggers are past the threshold where someone can make a moral justification to be critical of self voting. This doesn't stop people from being critical of even small amounts of income gained by a particular account but that is precisely the problem I have with the Steem Reward Pool Abuse Union. They are going after accounts recklessly and using accusatory tones like "reward pool rape" as if some relatively average income earning account is harming the reward pool.
If they are going to be critical they should follow a strict methodology where the biggest abusers get accused of abuse first and the biggest abusers would be the abusers who are pulling the most money out of Steem while providing the least value. If they look at my account history whether it's my amount of posts vs followers ratio, or the total amount of $ I pulled out of my account from Power Down, or the total amount I earned over years, none of it puts me in the category of whale, or reward pool abuser, or anywhere near immoral status in my opinion (if we are being reasonable).
Sure there are accounts which make $100-200 a month and they can claim my account making $1000 a month is unfair. That in my opinion is a race to the bottom and bad for all bloggers. Shouldn't a Steem Bloggers Union desire for the rewards to actually meet the cost of living for the majority of bloggers? So by complaining about the bloggers who aren't even at the cost of living it only harms the perception of the Steem community.
The point? If we are going to discuss reward pool abuse we need to be precise with our numbers. Make a case for an account which powered down $500,000 in the past year, or an account which upvoted itself into $200,000, or some set threshold. Make these thresholds public and clear so account holders know what "reward pool rape" even is because as it stands now, it appears to be whatever pisses off enough other people and no defined meaning.
Very correct. Some produce less valuable content and still make a lot bigger than someone with a good content. This is my 47th day in steemit and haven't earn a dollar per hour. I understand it takes time to grow.
I upvote my own posts too. I try to contribute to the discussions in which I participate and also upvote the content of others. Abusers are those who post garbage and don't support others.
Thanks for posting this,I truly agree with you at some point
,Do you think this should continue?
Craziness!
The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers...
That is an example of abuse. If it's just blank posts receiving $140 upvotes then no value is being created. But that is the extreme case.
Yeah..in one month i've seen like 10 people doing the same thing.
This is total abuse, no value content.
is this the recent one or ...?
Despite our sharing community built on interacting with others. People should focus on upvoting others more, based on whatever reasons. Like I'm all up to the fact many people avoid upvoting those who upvote themselves or if they upvote or don't upvote for any reason X.
I have made a decision, regarding the upvoting of the self scenario. Having had a good look around at the situation, and trying to see matters from every angle, I have found that the two main reasons given for upvoting yourself are, to add value to the post or to combat bots from hi-jacking it.
The post has value based on the interactions it's generating so I don't know if self upvoting ads value. Perhaps if you're a whale it can attract more attention to the post? On the other hand it is possible to post, get a lot of upvotes and not get much SBD rewards, which would indicate value isn't correlated necessarily with the rewards.
I don't really self vote because my vote is worth very little and my voting power is also low. So I prefer to use my SP to vote on the posts I comment to prove the person I really appreciate the post, not because of the value of the vote, but because of the gesture of voting.
Well, if the "minnows" all get bored of watching whales upvote themselves, good luck when the value of STEEM collapses.
Been here for 2 months and it's disappointing watching a few whales self vote.
I am seriously considering powering down my steem and selling out. I don't want to contribute to a system where just a few benefit. That's not what I want to be a part of
Great post! If the post creates no value then it shouldnt get value in return!
But what is value at the end of the day? What ever a person or group of people believe has value.
The system definitely needs some work!
Excellent publication @dana-edwards politely once again give your opinion about something that already has time in the line of discussion of the Steemians.