Did You Know: When you post using eSteem, 5% of rewards are disbursed to @esteemapp? Also, Self Voting Witnesses - a slippery slope, or a level playing field?
Note
I have realised through a little more digging and responses in comments, that I may have been a little excessively bleak in my report here, however, there is no clear and highly visible warning, or opt-out-able choice to not be part of the redistribution scheme, except 'uninstall'. (which I would have instantly done had I seen a warning).
A
week or two back, just after I got my new Blackview BV6000 rugged smart phone, I was out and about, and made a couple of posts from photos I was taking, using eSteem.
For some reason, I happened to look at the details of the post transaction, and noticed an entry in the 'beneficiaries' field.
Here you can see the @esteemapp, which is the beneficiary account that eSteem sets when it makes posts:
The 'weight' field is a fixed point real number, basically 100 times the value it represents, in percent. So 500 means 5%
I don't remember reading anywhere that eSteem does this, not in the installation process, and I didn't really read the incredibly boring, picture laden 'feature post' reports that @good-karma puts out there.
So, just a heads up especially to anyone who has not got whales voting on their posts, that 5% interest is being charged on your meagre rewards. Possibly sometime soon I will do some database drilling, once I finally get an RPC node finally up to date and functioning (it now takes over 3 days to sync an RPC), and find out how much SP has been syphoned into @esteemapp account, then add that to the data on how much @good-karma's witness has cumulatively earned. EDIT: I see that this @esteemapp funds a rewards fund. Still changes nothing about the fact I cannot opt out except by uninstalling, and not having been warned...
Witness Self Votes, BTW
And I want to also mention something. Self voting is also permitted for witnesses, of course. However, from 21 on up to whatever it is now, there is a progressive decline in the payrate, whereas it is flat for the top 19.
Witnesses can vote on their own account. Top 19's earn 45 steem a day for their roughly 1440 block produced a day. If such a witness starts with enough Steem Power, and votes only on themselves, once it breaches the top 19, that account's vote weight is increasing by 45 steem per day. Meanwhile, from 20, onwards, the self voting witness would have a progressively slower rate of growth of accumulated steem power.
This means that witnesses that vote for themselves, are riding a downhill slope, whereas everyone else is climbing up a hill.
Why I mention this now, is because every sucker who is using eSteem is now contributing SP to @good-karma, who, I am guessing, is delegating SP to @good-karma, on top of this 45 steem a day. EDIT: no, this is going to some kind of loyalty campaign to reward some users https://steemit.com/esteem/@good-karma/esteem-encouragement-and-feedback-loop-updates-htidx
Note, Chainbb also does this, but busy.org does not. One of the Busy devs just chimed in comments they didn't realise this was going on. Chainbb takes 15%. They prominently warn the users, however. (Now I didn't know this either, but then, with the way I was this last week when I saw it...)
Is the mystery of this witness's rapid ascent to the top a mystery to you anymore? Edit: However, clever scheme, but no warning is still not nice.
It is not a level playing field, and this particular witness has harnessed probably thousands of users to tilt the ground even further in his favour. Edit: Objection! Speculation and Baiting!
The idea that there might be a concern about self voting witnesses tickled my spidey sense the other day, but after thinking it through this evening, and remembering my discovery of the @esteemapp beneficiary, I wanted to share this information.
Edit:
As I commented in response to a comment, I just want to also add that it only takes 13 (no, not 14) colluding witnesses in the top 19, to mutually vote, and self vote, and a sufficent barrier of entry is erected against backup witnesses, and this group can completely control Hard Fork vetoes (or not) without any reference to anyone else.
In my opinion, the witness schedule should omit all votes coming from a witness in the active list.
Beneficiary feature was long waited and requested by all major apps on top of Steem and eSteem was the first application to give it a try. It has been mentioned multiple times in release notes and not secret at all! Information about this within app and compiling proper FAQ is in progress, will be added in future releases...
3 month ago, trial of 30 days with 1%, post link
2 month ago, after trial period to 5%, post link
Anyone can check stats about apps here: https://steemdb.com/apps
Many apps have beneficiary feature implemented and at the stage of figuring out if it is sustainable and viable model for the further development of project... Note that apps are in constant development stage and not all of them had incorporated/documented it
As for the second part of your theory (witness self voting), it is totally irrelevant topics to one another but small note: every stake holder/community member has right to vote any witness they want to support.
I think it would be reasonable to have a message in the app about it though? I personally knew about it because I follow eSteem dev posts but I've talked to several people about this and most of them were not aware that reward share was happening.
Yes, FAQ is in works and will be incorporated with new release as I mentioned in above comment and users will have to manually accept terms of usage.
Yes that's good, but I would advocate something like a first time pop up on first vote unless it was really drawn attention to in the ToS.
It's just in the interest of full consent and understanding, not against the usage of beneficiaries, which I think is really great. Some of those I spoke to we're not happy about it not being clear so actually you have to repair that trust a little I think. It was not up front to add it without an in app message to being with.
...but there is no mention of it when someone decides they want to see if there is a SteemIt app in the App Store and instead finds and downloads esteem... taking 5% of a bloggers rewards through an app without prior notification within said app is... wrong.
delete
Are people not allowed to have a free opinion here? I don't believe this comment should have been flagged...
Flagging is free opinion
It sure is. It's also a good way to suppress anyone who has an opposition.
I just want to explain to you, that I have positively proven that self and mutual voting in witness schedule is a clear example of a Prisoner's Dilemma. The only valid solution, is to discount votes from active witnesses.
I will be getting on with the heavy duty forensics analytics of the chain to prove my hypothesis, soon enough. These detox symptoms can't last forever, and neither can the RPC replay on my workstation. When I have all the data available, and made public in a very large torrent seeded by one of my servers, anyone will be able to feed thte data into any database and replicate the results.
Then, we are hiring lawyers, and certain holy cows are being made into pljeskavitsa for all to dine upon.
The most important thing was to show everyone, the in-app notification of this distribution being part of the app.
You completely disregard the clear multi-party prisoner's dilemma in the ability of top witnesses to vote for each other. Equilibrium will tend towards everyone snitching (voting) with this dynamic, and combined with escalating vote power, it is very very high inertia. Not what an election should be, at all. The opportunity for consolidation and centralisation by those who mutually vote, is the inevitable equilibrium.
I run NiceHash miner. Some miners, like your app, divert a portion of the mining earnings to the author. The warning message is very obtrusive.
You are a liar, like the rest of them, hoping that nobody will look closely enough to figure out the racket this whole thing is. But I'm not just gonna run away. I'm gonna dig up such fantastically comprehensive dirt on all of you. Then when it's buzzing around the torrents, I'll leave it to someone else to drive the nails I made for them.
Why was this comment flagged?
Because I have threatened to expose them.
But actually, to be honest, I think I already did, and there's no reason for me to go any further. Job done :) Time to go home and have some dinner.
I think it was because you straight up called @good-karma a liar
Hate Speech, I suppose.
Well, since I consider eSteem to be speech, and a lack of 'you must agree to me taxing you' is an omission, a form of lie, I think that my label fits the technical, legal definition.
What kind of mickey mouse software development operation doesn't think to put a 'agree to us taxing your rewards' message as a part of the initial setup process?
He's free to flag me as much as he likes, it doesn't change the facts, burned into the blockchain and copied to scores of computers, faithtfully, and the hidden code in his application, that shows nothing to a user, faithfully also recorded by github's servers.
Someone has to call it, or the cumulation of errors will continue, to the detriment of everyone.
I remember reading about the 5% for esteem. At that time I was afraid Steemit Inc. My try to do the same, also you might make a case that it would be useful to busy.org.
I really don't like automated vote for a witness!!! Not at all! Specially since most people here don't have the slightest idea about what is a witness. This is bad, in my opinion.
I remember during the time I used to hang out in #witness at the chat, seeing that smooth and abit had auto vote bots that would pull votes when witnesses started missing blocks continuously, in the top 19. It was an interesting method of policing quality of service, but I didn't even think any further about what collusive witnesses could do, espsecially whales.
You should have been around during HF18. Some witnesses blatantly talking about the old boys network. Very consensus building on their part. Follow our lead or you're out of top 20.
I was not in any kind of state to do this work then. I moved here to Sofia, with the express intention of getting my health in order, which as the process progressed, it became clear first thing I had to attend to was getting entirely free of all drugs.
So, I'm gonna be using psychological provocation techniques, in fact, someone helpfully pointed me to a field manual from badquaker about how to do this kind of subversion in media. I already have a pretty good feel for what's involved, but every extra tool in the kit that fits a situation that no other works on, I'm going to do a proper Coyote/Loki on Steem.
The ability of active witness accounts to vote is now my highest priority, with self-voting generally eliminated at blockchain consensus level. I am making no secret of what I am doing, either, because I believe that the scoffing makes them more likely to fall for being tricked into making a confession, which then destroys their ability to continue their line of defence.
Could this even be hardcoded into the chain?
Pretty sure I even argued that point with Smooth and Abit. Also I said the schedule is not scalable it should be a curve based on active count. They said something about 'not wanting to be higher or lower. Yes, because they are 19 prisoners in a prisoners dilemma. Differences would accelerate the most persuasive and popular one, amongst them, to far too high a position.
Now I see how the game works, the solution is to not count the witness account's votes for witnesses. Then they again have to resort to secondary accounts and have the problem of their SP partitioning and the power down.
I'd maybe even go so far as to say that the 2 year power down would be good. Or at least 26 weeks. But maybe make the payments daily. You could even have a special power down condition for witness pay to further defeat this attempt at gaming it. dish out 2 years in daily pieces if they need to spend it. or weekly. 13 weeks has accelerated the equilibrium of the witness mutual vote dilemma.
Many interesting ideas there.
Actually you might want the witnesses to interact. The DPOS kind of assume they will react if something happen. Of course the 2/3 is enough to start they own chain but remember Steemit Inc or Busy would have to decide what they are going to show.
As I say, steemit only has to 'persuade' cooperation from 13 and they really have full control, and the witnesses will either play this game, or rat each other out (not vote) and whoever is better, and has more control, will win.
Part of the issue is that you can do this by provoking people's greed, getting them to do stupid things like exactly this farce of good-karma's, then you can use blackmail to manipulate them. But it's a whole nest of them. They have all amply demonstrated to me, in many instances I have provoked them into confirming their viciousness, and, really, do I need to do much more? I'm just gonna do analysis on the chain, and have this verified by multiple parties and a case can be thtrown against every one of them for running a racket.
And steem is over. They probably even have an exit strategy. You wouldn't believe how much they have creamed out of this. Most of it has been thanks to the big investors. This is why most of them are such grumpy bitches. Not just for being begged votes all day long, but being manipulated with vote gaming tactics.
I am now suggesting to the #steem-coop that we might need to add another HF rule as well as no direct self voting at blockchain consensus level - active witness account votes are omitted from the witness schedule calculations.
I thought, first, no self vote, and then, I realised, circle jerk, and then I realised - hey, they are getting paid as well.
Witness on Witness Akshun...
it'd make a good porno... The potential for witnesploitation is gobswaggling.
You need to vote for yourself to start a witness node, but yeah, at some point it can exclude your votes, but still keep you on the list.
No you don't. You just post an 'update_witness' command that sets your bias, witness post, interest rate and account fee.
I've investigated the beneficiary feature myself and wrote a post about it.
I'm extending the courtesy to you by notifying you of it rather than have you miss it, or self-discover it too late.
I am anticipating you to dislike my viewpoint and group me into what you call "liars"... but I don't know until you react.
Please read it with an open mind, and make your comments as you see fit.
Please see the latest post on my blog.
I believe in fairness, which I think you do too... but I had a slightly different way of discussing this issue.
Good luck. I now wait for the inevitable to happen once you read it.
I am a voluntaryist, I don't give a damn about anything that is consented to. I do have a big problem with too many 'opt out' 'services' happening these days. First post on this account and I had 5 auto-comments, 2 or 3 autovotes, and only one human actually responded to my comments on these autobots when I said that I was not a new account but @l0k1 with a new (old) handle.
You can always drop the link to me if you like, and to be explicit about which post you mean as well, though I will now look.
Also, maybe you were not aware, but I am following you.
Yes that's good, but I would advocate something like a first time pop up on first vote unless it was really drawn attention to in the ToS.
It's just in the interest of full consent and understanding, not against the usage of beneficiaries, which I think is really great. Some of those I spoke to we're not happy about it not being clear so actually you have to repair that trust a little I think. It was not up front to add it without an in app message to being with.
If I may make a suggestion, maybe it need not explain this to me, and other users whose stake is higher than the benefit threshold, to set it to default false, but expose the option, even, a pesty first popover thing, begging me, as a big user, to help little users.
In my opinion, there needs to be a LOT more work, on the part of Steemit, Inc., towards actually providing some data, citations, and other useful justifications for things, instead of just selling it like the preambles on government law statutes. Just because the devs are optimistic their changes will do something positive, doesn't mean we should trust them, or even, simply take it without advisement.
You guys, who are building interfaces, you have a massive opportunity for getting intensive, direct, in-app feedback from users. This could really boost the UX for everyone, filtering out bad ideas sooner.
You mean first post, I think?
There's nothing wrong with beneficiaries, except for consent, in this case. When it is in favour of the user, consent is not so important, but I think leaving out a note about it is a bad thing also.
This is why trust has been lost, and rightly so.
Besides all thtis, standard interfaces have a tutorial at the beginning. One frame dedicated to this information seems reasonable (and there, you can put a checkbox!)
wondering how you will take this experiment:
cause been using esteem app a few times. app still cool but better to get the WHOLE info and data on this so most can be aware if they continue to use it. It's still useful cause mobility on steem to post on the go and schedule postings. So guess will see in 3 days then.
I am going to have to do this forensics now, on the dynamics of witness voting, identify the circle jerk, because I am now certain there is one. It only takes 2/3 witnesses mutually self voting and they can hold the majority, and pass whichever hardfork they want.
Talk about a simulation of democracy... I'll get the hard numbers, publish the query script, and if I am right, thtis could be the evidence required to prosecute Steemit, Inc for running a scam.
It does however, also disturb me that another thing springs to mind as well. Steem Power could be judged as a security. This would also be quite interesting for the SEC to understand, I think.
normally 2/3 should be a lot of people!! But it's only 14! not enough for securing so many people.
I had no idea the @esteemapp would essentially be taxing my posts. I don't agree with it from governments, and I don't agree with it from third parties. I guess I'll be deleting the app... Taxation is theft.
Technically, taxation is extortion, since it uses coercion and threat. In this case, it's more like picking your pocket :)
Thanks for keeping a diligent eye on things!
I'm quite skeptical of off-chain apps/tools in general and even more so those requesting keys. I hope that this discovery will help to inform other users of unwitting contributions made at their bequest.
The beauty of blockchain solutions is the transparency. Most schemes ought be able to be smoked out with enough investigation.
Good work!
I think it would have been prudent to give 24 hours for good-karma to have provided a response before outing him on this issue... if it is indeed "outing" anything.
Did you try to contact him?
Surely there must be an option somewhere or a notification about this function.
I don't have this app on my phone yet. I am mostly interested in @good-karma response, so I've attempted to notify him so he may be aware of this post and offer a comment.
I'd hardly call this an "outing", it's been public knowledge for a long time, just not widely enough probably and there's no in app message about it.
I agree, there should be an in-app message about it.
A warning? about a concealed diversion of rewards from posts made with the app? To build a damage control campaign?
Uh uh.
By the way, also it seems that chainbb could be doing this also.
Also, beneficiaries can be set on comments. I haven't looked at that.
https://steemd.com/@esteemapp to see all those benefactor rewards going in.
Not sure how long this is going on for but there is over 5000 steem in @esteemapp. There is upvotes going out from it as well. It looks like an autovote list to me.
No warning in the interface.
ChainBB does 15% and openly announced it. I'm totally in favor of these uses though I agree with you that upfront notification should be better and more prominent. At that point the market will decide what % it will bear to use the features in a given app or community.
Caveat Emptor eh? Skating on thin ice would be how I would describe it.
Good that chainbb makes it obvious. It looks pretty obvious to me, after looking at https://steemd.com/@esteemapp that this pool of SP earned this way is being used to fund some kind of vote buying scheme.
I wouldn't call it vote buying. It's a "rewards program" of sorts to encourage use of the app. Again, many won't seek out and read blog posts, so making info more accessible is a good cause, but it is disclosed and not shady in my opinion.
I didn't see an option at any stage in the process that gave fair notification that I was joining this scheme. Users cannot be expected to read what are often TL;DR 'features' posts from @good-karma about it.
There is getting to be far too many opt out things going on in this system, it's starting to remind me of the internet in the late 90s, with a bazillion popovers, popups, pop unders, sideloads, hijacks, flashy things, and drivebys... I had 6 bots 'greet' and 'grease' my new @elfspice account last week. Only one of the operators actually noticed that I wrote in the post that I am the very same as @l0k1's owner also.
The longer I sit in #general at steemit.chat. the more convinced I am there is one or more sweatshops employing cheap labor to attempt to milk the Steem blockchain. Sure, maybe now, only 9.3% or so can be involved in this syphon, but how long can stakeholders in this system expect to be happy about as much as 1% of their stakes going towards self voters, warning-free rewards redistribution schemes, and I didn't even get to vote buying and circle jerks and the extremely slanted floor in the witness chamber...