RE: 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?
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
Beneficiaries, from this version eSteem mobile has esteemapp account as a beneficiary for every comment/post made through it. As a trial run for next 30 days, 1% of the reward is shared with esteemapp and used for further development of the project. I hope Steemit will also introduce beneficiaries to bootstrap competition among different Steem apps.
2 month ago, after trial period to 5%, post link
Beneficiary reward changed from 1 to 5% after initial 30 days period.
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.