You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I did it! I bought my first steem and powered up... Is it wrong to upvote my own content?
Personally I think this is really lame and counterproductive to the site. It should be that a user creates a post, and every upvote has the same "weight" to it so the only way one can rise to the top is by actually being voted on the relevance and quality level by the community. The way it is now, the rich stay rich and the poor Steemiters stay poor unless they get lucky. The system is highly aristocratic and I believe will receive much backlash in the future as the power/influence gap becomes wider.
That is a fair point, which I agree with. I also think payout should be based solely on merit and not wealth. But since the ability self-upvote exists, doesn't it mean that those who don't do it will simply give away the advantage to those that do?
I agree on the merit thing. Anything Proof of Stake in any sense is an absurd approach IMHO. Yes, you are absolutely right the ones who do not self-upvote are at a disadvantage. The feature needs to be removed entirely for any hope of salvation. No one should be able to stroke their own ego thusly.
How about the argument that self-upvoting is a form of interest payment for holding the currency? I guess it could be seen as an effective incentive for bootstrapping the adoption of a new currency.
Sure, I guess so. It's free to upvote yourself after all. The problem comes in when you have users that have so much influence then can just effectively put themselves on the trending page. If your post somehow shows up their, your visibility level skyrockets and it's payday for you. It's the whole cutting in line thing when you can afford to bribe the bouncer that is so unfair to everyone. I could convert my crypto and get a bunch of steem power, but it just feels morally wrong to me so I don't.