The Reward Pool Rape saga between @berniesanders & @haejin

While I am a somewhat small Steemian in the grand scheme of things, I do enjoy watching a platform built on the anarchist principles of self governance and non-hierarchical leadership try and solve its problems.

While the grand idea or illusion of STEEMIT, may be one of a leaderless utopia wherein everyone is free to do as they please; the reality is somewhat different. In my time here I have found that much like regular society, there are the haves and the have nots, the lords and the serfs, those that feel they are the institution and those that wish to rebel against it. I find the dichotomy to be quite fascinating. In this article I won’t even begin to delve into which side I think is more, or less correct in their views as both have valid points.

That said, getting back on point and going directly to the heart of the issue at hand in regards to the feud between the opposing camps of @haejin & @berniesanders. After spending quite a few hours (many more than I usually do) on Steemit sifting through the Chaos I would like to lay out what I believe are the points of view for each camp.

First let us start with @berniesanders……..and in the red corner, weighing in with an army of the STEEMIT elite, the reigning, defending STEEMIT Shit starter and defender of platform ideals…….. @BEEEEERRRRNIEEEEE…. SANDEERRRSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( Tried to type like a ring announcer..)

So what are the salient points of this camp?

1. The platform comes first. It is my opinion from reading through the various posts of those in agreement with @Berniesanders that the overall long term stability of the platform must be maintained above all else. That in order accomplish that, rewards should be distributed in a more even fashion, perhaps caps on rewards, and no user should be allowed to earn too much.

2. @haejin is abusing his new found whale love by having quite noticeably increased his post count since @ranchorelaxo started throwing money at him left and right. As a result he is consuming a disproportionately large amount of the reward pool.

I believe, minus all the hate, discontent and other nonessential garbage that was thrown throughout the comments, that these are essentially the two main points.

As a somewhat neutral Steemian and moderately successful entrepreneur and business person I would like to address these points individually before moving onto those brought up by the @haejin clan.

First point; Platform Comes First:

I would agree that the platform must come first as without a platform there would be no whale mana to spread about and the argument would be mute. That said , this is a very delicate balancing act as the platform depends on users and without them it would be of no use regardless of whether it existed or not. So where do we draw the line? At a certain point I believe we must look at it like a business, and decide what is best for the business, look at the profit/loss statement and determine if a user is hurting the bottom line or adding to the profit margin. As Steemit is a platform dependent upon the original creative content of many users, I would agree that at a certain point you have to step in and say enough is enough in a situation wherein any single user is taking a disproportionately large amount of the rewards that should be distributed more evenly amongst all the users.

While STEEMIT is a novel concept, the basic structure of its business model is not so unique. STEEMIT, like pretty much every other website in existence depends upon GOOGLE to bring new users through organic search. These new users, should see a thriving community full of excellent content, they should see a variety of authors with rewards on their posts and want the opportunity to be a part of it, post their own articles, make money, buy STEEM, become a whale and live happily ever after.

STEEMIT wants new users that create content, buy STEEM, convert it to STEEMPOWER for more influence and stay on the platform. While regular non contributing viewers are great and help by spreading the word or sharing articles, they are more like window shoppers and impulse buyers of small items at the counter than actual customers that establish a long term relationship with the company and its product.

To that end, I can certainly see how one person receiving a disproportionately high amount of the reward pool hurts the overall platform by limiting the amount of authors that benefit from their own hard work and content creation . I can also see how it would demotivate some authors that work just as hard or harder, to produce as good or better content in this category or another, yet reap little in the form of rewards or appreciation for their efforts. But @haejin ‘s content is valuable his fans will scream, he deserves to be paid. To that I say value is in the eye of the beholder. I will not weigh in on his accuracy or lack there of. I will only say that as he is a Technical Analyst those interested in that topic find value in his content. But that is just one small part of STEEMIT, such a very small part and I think that many in the @haejin camp need to step back from the trees so they can actually see the forest.

As to value being in the eye of the beholder, there are many that have no interest in cryptocurrencies and accordingly would find no value in his content. Yet those with dissimilar interests are still here on STEEMIT participating in categories or topics of interest that do pertain to them. Value is such a subjective term as it depends on the user, their interests, stage of life, experiences etc.

What is more valuable, a cryptocurrency analysis or a short story for a little girl?

What is more valuable, the latest stock tip or a picture of a place that brings back a memory for someone dying of cancer?

What is more valuable, a coin going up or a war veteran connecting with and healing with another through them posting to their blog?

What has more value, a coin chart or the guy on here that got his two little girls back thanks to the advice of another STEEMIAN after they were taken by the state due to false allegations by a vengeful spouse?

Why weren’t these posters, that likewise helped their fellow STEEMIANS, but helped them in ways far above financial gain showered with .025 percent of the rewards pool, much less 1% or more. So for those using value as the basis for their argument supporting @haejin, that is a very subjective, relative and precarious foundation from which to build your case.

As someone whom has more or less survived cancer and may be living on borrowed time I find memories and things that make those real to me, of much more value than money or tips. Yes I do cryptanalysis as well, but at this point it is more of a hobby and point of interest than a profession as I have already established myself financially in that regard. I do what I do to give back, and share knowledge. You never really realize how important giving back is or how little you have given back until you find yourself in a situation where you may be on borrowed time.

Concluding this point, I do believe rewards should be distributed more evenly amongst all Steemians and not be based simply on how much financial gain someone’s tips may or may not of helped another increase their wealth. All content has value to someone, it is just relative to the viewer. We do not want to get to the point that those that create alternative content not revolving around money or cryptocurrencies feel slighted, unappreciated and decide to leave the platform.

Second Point; haejin is abusing his new found whale love through excessive posting:

Being objective I went through @haejin ‘s postings over the course of 2 months. Maintaining my objectivity I cannot see that he has significantly increased his post count following him having gained the favor of @ranchorelaxo. For the period I examined, he has, for the most part consistently published 7 or more articles per day. I did not bother going back to the beginning of time, as the main point of contention revolves around "him recently increasing his post count in order to game the rewards system" though upvotes from @ranchorelaxo; this does not appear to be the case.

That said, much of his content could be condensed into 4 or less postings. “NO!”, screams his fans, “he does it this way so as to create a library for later reference”.. ehh, I don’t really buy that argument as he could still create a library if he were to condense his titles away from nonsensical catch phrases and multiple daily updates on the same commodity to a simpler title that is more information and less Carnival Barker. For example:

In one instance @haejin provided 4 updates on the same commodity within hours of each other that were essentially the same.

• BTC Morning Update: Two Paths = Same Destination...UP!
• Bitcoin (BTC) Mid-Day Update: Probable Correction to $6,800 and then Orgasmic Lunges to $8,200
• Bitcoin (BTC) Second Mid-Day Update: High Resolution Chart-Surgery of Bitcoin... See the Price
• Bitcoin (BTC) Evening Update: Different Price Paths but Same Destination....UP!

He also tends to post 8 -11 titles per day, each covering a single coin.

• STEEM Update: The Chalice of Wealth Pours Until Your Cup Overflows with PROFITS!!
• TIERI BitShares (BTS): Follow the Blue Brook Road, Turn Right at the Handle then Go Upwards Again
• ON (TNT) Analysis: A Gift Horse Cometh Bearing Gifts of PROFITS, PROFITS and PROFITS!!

It would probably curb much of the hate mail he is receiving and make the community happier overall if her were to condense his titles as such.

• (STEEM)---(TIERI)--- ON(TNT), Technical Analysis, Experience Chartist.. Earn Big

There are sufficient HTML formatting options within STEEMIT to allow him to condense 3 or so into one post and sufficiently delineate them so as not to be confusing for his audience. The way that he is currently doing it, based upon his rewards payout, and high frequency posting, could be considered abusive towards the greater community. If he is to be a whale then so be it, but he should step back, look at the greater needs of the platform and start to conduct himself in a form and fashion so as to set an example for lesser STEMIANS. In order to do so he should avoid cashing out, should reinvest in the platform, should make the necessary changes to his posting frequency so as to set a good example and maintain a harmonious environment where all STEEMIANS are rewarded for their content regardless of topic. A community of self governed farmers would not last long, if one kept all the grain.

Who are the members that comprise the majority of @Berniesanders following? After having read through hundreds of comments, it really only breaks down into two groups of people.

Group A:

Those that are legitimately concerned about the platform, the community and its long term survival, and those that are straight haters of others success. I tend to relate better with the first group, although unlike myself, many of them are whales and higher rep Steemians I still share the ideal of doing what is best for the overall community even in the event that a single user may be slighted to some degree. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I would have to say that this group consists of a great many contributors and those that are heavily invested in the platform through STEEM purchases. In looking at it from a business perspective, this group comprises the repeat customers and those that not only invest in but establish a relationship with the company I mentioned earlier.

Group B:

Haters, I really don’t need to elaborate to any degree; as haters are going to hate. This group from what I have observed is primarily made of lower level STEEMIANS, those that don’t actually get the community harmony aspect of the platform, those that have put in little work and expect a large payout or those that tend to brown nose and jump on whatever band wagon they believe will launch them into STEEMIT success, deserving or not. There are some high level ass hats in this group as well, but they are the minority. This is the group that typically goes around flagging the posts of @haejin followers or acting in other passively aggressive or assholish ways. As a member of the greater STEEMIT community, I cannot condone, flagging a rebuttal post from another users followers, regardless of what they said; it is petty, childish and creates a poorer reflection on you than the author of whatever comment you are trying to refute; be it nonsense or not. If you find that you are ill equipped to intelligently debate a point, topic, or post without smashing the flag out of malice then either don’t get involved, or just keep your mouth shut. This is community and each member is entitled put forth their opinions in defense of a point, be it related to the @haejin issue or not. So long as they are not spamming links, engaging in hate speech or criminal behavior then either refute the point intelligently or keep your mouth shut and stay out of it. I debate all the time, I disagree all the time, call me whatever name you wish, argue your point, I will not flag you, but I will defend my ideals with facts and knowledge so be prepared. Steemians should not be afraid to post a thought, for fear of being flagged and bullied.

I was somewhat put by the fact that @berniesanders initiated debate into @haejin ‘s earnings with this post "https://steemit.com/steem/@berniesanders/haejin-still-raping-the-reward-pool-is-ned-involved", yet from what I could tell did not stay in the fight and debate the topic in the comments section. It seemed more or less as though he gathered some sticks, gasoline, threw them together and tossed in an inflammatory title to ignite the fire, then left for everyone else to watch it burn. In regards to that very post I can, again being objective, see how many of @haejin ‘s followers may sense hypocrisy as that post is in excess of $1,000 Steem dollars now. So I am unsure if @berniesanders will pocket that or be the good whale and revert a sum back to the rewards pool. I have no opinion either way and simply fall back to the adage of "practice what you preach".

Ok, moving to @haejins corner ……..and in the blue corner, weighing in with an army of YouTube followers…..The underdog….The peoples champion.. the defender of capitalist greed…….. IT’S @ haaaaaaaaaaaaae----JIN!!!!!!! (again trying to type out like a ring announcer, use your imagination.)

So what are they all about? What is the basis of their argument and what are the key points?

1. Steemit is free market, any STEEMIAN should be allowed to earn as much as they can without worrying about reprisal or the greater good of the community, anyone who flags or says otherwise is a communist trying to exert dominance over free speech and the internet.

2. @haejins is the little guy, Whales and high level Stemians are bullies, there is a secret society of haters whom have made it their sole mission in life to bring @haejin and his followers down.

3. @haejin brought us all here, without him we would not be here, @haejin has benefited Steemit by bringing us here, without @haejin we would all leave.

4. @haejin makes us money, so piss on the rest of the community; he deserves every penny and more.

After having made attempts to engage in meaningful conversation with a few of his groupies, I was somewhat put off by the fact that very few would or could debate the actual topic and instead chose the lesser route of calling me a “communist”, or just saying “ @haejin is our guru, you are a hater”. This in spite of the fact I made more than enough comments complimenting the man on his success. Regardless of what becomes of this rewards pool issue, whether he makes to much, not enough, etc. He has to be credited for his efforts. While it may be a touchy subject for those in the @berniesanders camp, he has through his hard work earned a lot of what he has. He has been posting consistently for quite a while and for the most part been a dedicated Steemian just trying to make it.

That said, there are allegations of nefarious and surreptitious dealings in regards to @haejin, his use of a bot army, shill accounts etc to artificially vote himself up, comment on his articles etc. I have no information for or against those claims, if someone does, it would likely help this issue greatly if they would be so kind as to produce it. In the event that that it turns out he did act in such a manner then and there is proof to substantiate it; then any accolades and compliments aforementioned would become null and void. As gaming the system, or utilizing technology in such a way as to disadvantage or mislead other users is in stark contrast with the overall spirit of STEEMIT. If such allegations are founded, then at that point, I would not object to @ned , a STEEMIAN of similar status or group thereof nuking his account back to the stone age. As I have no tangible information to support those claims, then I can only compliment the man on his hard work and success thus far on STEEMIT.

First Point: Steemit is free market, any STEEMIAN should be allowed to earn as much as they can without worrying about reprisal or the greater good of the community, anyone who flags or says otherwise is a communist trying to exert dominance over free speech and the internet.

I would agree that STEEMIT is free market and that STEEMIANS should be rewarded based upon their conduct within this little ecosystem as well as for the quality or value of content they produce. As I stated earlier, value is very subjective and comes down to the individual interests of the viewer. The amount of money, or lack thereof that @haejin 's posts allow other to make should not be the determining factor as to whether that content is more or less valuable than other content, or whether it should be rewarded more or less than the submissions of authors in different areas of interest. If you have read this far, I am not going to rehash the paragraph from above covering this.

In regards to the argument that authors should not have to worry about reprisal (flagging) from other users based upon how much their posts make. Yes, and no. No, they should not have to worry about reprisal from other users based upon the creation of content that is not morally objectionable and breaks no laws. Yes, they should worry about reprisal if post earnings exceed what the community or any member of the community views as acceptable. Disputes over post rewards are specifically outlined by STEEMIT policy as an acceptable reason for flagging a post.

For those on the side of @haejin, you cannot cherry pick the features of STEEMIT that suit you (ability to earn, free market, speech etc.) and cry out in rage when a permissible feature of the same platform is used as designed, but does not benefit you. To that end if the post is flagged simply as a result of its earnings or to limit earnings, then that is just the way it is.. suck it up and move on. If however, posts or comments are flagged simply because a user has an opposing view or they support one person instead of another then that is unacceptable. I did observe after cruising STEEMD that most of the latter behavior came from the haters group mentioned earlier in regards to flagging comments; not all, but the overwhelming majority.

If you flag you are a commie and hate free speech. I think that a lot of feelings got hurt, a lot of people acted vengeful and irresponsible, but flagging based on post payout has nothing to do with communism or free speech. This community is allowed to flag based on post payout, regardless reputation or stake; it just so happens that those with large shares (whales) will more often act in a way they feel protects the greater interests of the site, its members and their own. That said, that is the platform, deal with it. Some features will benefit your cause and some will crush it, but without the platform you would have not cause to fight for.

Second point; @haejins is the little guy, Whales and high level Stemians are bullies, there is a secret society of haters whom have made it their sole mission in life to bring @haejin and his followers down.

I think this implies a lot more drama than there actually is. Looking at it objectively, yes.. @Berniesanders posting style was inflammatory, but it grabbed attention and served its purpose. Again, this is a feature of STeemit, you can post inflammatory content, you have the right rally other members to your cause and you have the right to exercise your ability to downvote content based on STeemits guidelines for flagging. @Berniesanders made the choice to exercise these features of the platform in a way that the followers of @haejin did not like. Maintaining my objectivity and after reading through the comments on both sides, I found that the followers of @haejin seemed to be the more combative group in regards to slinging insults, and making less than salient points to support his disproportionate take of the reward pool. I also found them to be a more concerned with the in the moment capitalist, free speech argument than the long term health of the site, fair distribution of wealth argument.

As I stated above, I don’t think there is an Army of haters that have made a mission of crushing @haejin or his followers. I think that a few high influence members exercised their right to downvote, rally members to their cause etc. and it was wrongly perceived as a personal attack against @haejin or abusing their power. I likewise think that a fair number of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and acted in an irresponsible and hateful manner by flagging comments, getting into insult wars, or just generally acting like an ass hats. On the other side I feel that those in favor of @haejin twisted a permissible site feature into an attack on ones liberties and right to make a living.

Third Point; @haejin brought us all here, without him we would not be here, @haejin has benefited Steemit by bringing us here, without @haejin we would all leave.

As you advocate free market and capitalism you are more than welcome to shop elsewhere. While I am sure Steemit appreciates the page views, I found that a large percentage of @haejin followers do not contribute to the site, through purchases of Steem or creation of content. This is not to say all, but the majority. I also found that they tend to only follow @haejin, comment up his posts, reward his posts etc. While I am sure @haejin appreciates the business, this does not really benefit the site in any substantial way, save increasing the amount of page views. As stated earlier, content and purchases of STEEM keep this machine running. So if those that don’t do either chose to leave, then I highly doubt the site will be affected in a noticeable way.

I also find it somewhat immature to threaten to leave. This is real life, nobody really cares, if that is how you feel then you are welcome to do so, no need to announce it. I also found that those that tended to scream the loudest for @haejin have created little or no content; as such they cannot possibly understand the grind that is trying to make it on STEEMIT and getting peanuts for your efforts. They cannot possibly understand how discouraging it can be for other members of the community, when one member is rewarded excessively while they are overlooked. I would recommend that some of those that screamed the loudest start writing articles, posting them and try to make a return. Put in the hours of effort required to write 20 unique, creative and engaging articles and then see if you feel the same way about reward distribution.

Fourth Point; @haejin makes us money, so piss on the rest of the community; he deserves every penny and more.

I find this to be a rather short sighted and selfish attitude to have in regards to the Steemit community as a whole. You really have to look at the long term health of the site, and determine if it will still be around if authors leave as a result of what they believe to be unfair distribution of wealth. I do not discredit @haejin for his efforts and hard work, but we have to put things into perspective and determine a reasonable payout for a person based upon their skill set, and what they provide for others. The only fair way I could surmise to accomplish this was to actually research the average annual salary of a Technical Analyst. To that end they make $39,622 - $91,995; Average Base Pay $63,436/yr. If the Steemians that follow him feel he is worth it then pay him as such, but $60,000 a week is beyond ridiculous no matter how you slice it. It takes away from the site, the other users, and the hopes of others trying to make it and be rewarded for their efforts.

I do not blame @haejin for his success. I see that both camps used permissible features of the site to their respective advantage and the competing side did not like it. The issue does not lie with @haejin, it lies with the site, and what it allows. It also lies with somewhat irresponsible behavior by members with an extreme amount of influence over the reward pool (@ranchorelaxo).In regards to the sugar daddy whale that boosts @haejin to the point of accruing 1 percent or more of the reward pool.I think continually upvoting his posts to extraordinary dollar amounts is abusive of the reward pool, somewhat short sighted and irresponsible behavior for a member with that much influence; again my opinion. I would hope that once at that level you would be able to look past your nose and toward the betterment of the platform by choosing to evenly disperse rewards to a variety of up and coming Steemian authors in much the same way as @hendrikdegrot routinely does.

Playing devil’s advocate let us assume that Mr. Whale made a profit on the advice of @haejin and has made the choice to show his gratitude by upvoting his posts. To a point, I believe this fine. If I had that level of influence, had profited from his advice, I would upvote a few of his posts big time in appreciation and then back it down considerably. I did my feel good deed, having rewarded him, but did not lose sight of the overall goal of promoting the long term life of the platform which consists of many users. While it may be unfair that this whale is consistently rewarding @haejin, and acting in a way that could be detrimental to the platform and its image; life is pretty much unfair all the time. The platform should shoulder a large portion of the blame as it runs on an Anarchist principle of self governance where each user is allowed to reward as often as they wish, in any amount they wish and only to those that they favor. That is the current system, and while unfair, we have to work with what we have in spite of the fact that is allows for considerably disproportionate reward payouts.

Lastly, @haejin you have done very well these last couple of weeks, and likely banked $60,000 USD or more thanks to @ranchorelaxo. The absolute last thing you should be doing is posting stuff like this:

How to HELP @haejin.... ADD STEEM POWER and UPVOTE!!

https://steemit.com/money/@haejin/how-to-help-haejin-add-steem-power-and-upvote

It smacks of greed and ungratefulness for what you have achieved. You need more? You need more votes and a larger portion of the rewards pool? You should, at this point exercise humility and thankfulness while remaining quiet on the issue except to say thank you to your followers while you keep chugging away on your analysis. I mean seriously? Would you like us to set up a Gofundme page for you? This is not appreciative behavior, nor is it the type of behavior I could look up to if you achieve mythical whale status. You should take some time once your rewards come in and go through and curate like there is no tomorrow. Find other analysts, authors in other categories and try to elevate them to you new found level on Steemit. But whatever you do, do not put forth a pity party campaign for the disadvantaged @haejin whom just made more in a week, than most will make in a few years of hard work. It’s shallow, in poor taste, and while I don’t know you, I hope that this was a brain fart and that such manipulative self serving behavior is not your norm. ( I will parody this in another post)

Related Posts:

https://steemit.com/steem/@berniesanders/haejin-still-raping-the-reward-pool-is-ned-involved

https://steemit.com/money/@haejin/how-to-help-haejin-add-steem-power-and-upvote

---

STEEMIT INTRODUCTION

---