@GrumpyCat and @rewardpoolrape are doing us all a favour! The Self-Vote Abuse can't be brushed under the carpet any longer, time for solutions!
Steemit Inc and Witnesses now will have to come up with solutions.
@grumpycat and @rewardpoolrape are only the highest profile self-voting abusers and are trying to make a point:
https://steemit.com/sbd/@checkthisout/sbd-correction
https://steemit.com/@rewardpoolrape
The Self-Vote Abuse (self-vote of low effort posts/comments) is endemic across the Steem Platform at every level as I explained in my post earlier:
https://steemit.com/steemitabuse/@steempolice/steem-has-no-future-unless-self-vote-abuse-is-stopped-steemit-inc-and-whales-do-your-part
So far the issue has been ignored. Now it can't be ignored any longer or Steem will collapse.
Steem prides itself as "Proof of Brain", yet lots of Proof of No Brain is happening with no-effort posts/comments being self-rewarded significant amounts.
Self-Vote Abuse is the main issue, but also the Circle Jerk between some high Steem Power individuals needs to be looked into. Especially those who received high delegations then secretely schemed in StemitChat to vote each other.
If Steem Whales care about the platform those huge delegations would be best taken away and used to nullify Self Vote Abuse instead!
Hmm. I'm doubting the validity of what your saying in regards to Steemit Collapsing. I would also reccomend using the "return key" a bit more often so users don't get the wall of text feeling. Other than that help Steemit survive buy some steem, or create content.. thanks.
Wait a second... I thought I was already following a 'steempolice'. Did you somehow start another account under the same (or similar) name?
You might be thinking of @steemcleaners
Easy way to stop self-vote abuse: remove the self vote.
What purpose does it serve than to encourage people to abuse their own votes? They are doing nothing wrong. They aren't abusing anything, anyone is free to upvote anything, just as anyone is free to downvote them.
If the system allows the self-upvote, then people can use it when they please. Whether this should be the case is the question we should be asking.
These "abusers" are simply mining more efficiently than everyone else given the current protocol.
NOT easy, considering the fact that many users are having multiple accounts, considering also the fact of circle voting.
I think useful suggestions to make self-voting, circle-voting and spamming less attractive could be ...implementing diminishing returns when upvoting the same accounts (including own ones) again and again.
reintroducing the restriction to four full paid posts per day (from some hard forks ago) which was very reasonable.
thinking about other ideas like a sigmoid reward curve. Due to it's flat begin it would be far less attractive to upvote posts on which nobody else is voting (self-voting of comments would be less attractive). As it also ends flat, extreme rewards (like with n^2) would be avoided, as well.
considering also other ideas like the one of UserAuthority from @scipio.
Well, using other accounts is technically not self-upvoting, but I understand this argument. That being said, I would still like to ban the self-upvote as well as adopt supplementary changes that address your concerns.
That being said, although the self-upvote does not solve all of our problems, what is the issue with banning it? It removes a portion of self-vote abuse and forces people to upvote other content. While not THE solution, it should be considered as part of one. Then again, people are entitled to their guaranteed rewards. I do like the four posts idea and have no idea why that penalty was removed.
I would prefer implementing diminishing returns as it still allows you to upvote your articles, but the more often you do it the less reward you will get ...
Apart from different preferences most important would be that a real discussion about the problem should take place, where every idea was at least considered with all its pros and cons ...
I can agree as I think it only encourages users to abuse the system, perhaps provide incentive in some way to upvote others more
Steemit is a living social media epitome on how greedy human being can be.
It is a very interesting little experiment that is for sure.
On a side note, I don't feel the need to have this kind of social experiment just to confirm humans are the most suckers of all living beings. Mere logic coupled with life experience already validated this argument. For even that over hyped notion of love is itself a very act of selfishness.
yes
What is to prevent a whale from starting 50 or 100 accounts, so it looks like different people, then using those account for upvoting?(actually it is already being done) Is there any guaranteed way to know who has multiple accounts and then prevent extra accounts from upvoting each other? that is who is raping the rewards pool. Little people who might upvote themselves 10 cents are not the problem.
Congratulations @steempolice! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!