If you vote yourself, you don't take money from your own pocket, that's true. Your sum is zero. But you still take out from the reward pool, proportionally. If somebody downvotes you, that amount, from the reward pool, is sent back to the reward pool, and the downvoter pays a CBP, which is redistributed to all the voters, proportionally.
Ex: I vote and allocate 10 cents (I don't take out other 10 cents from my own account because it will mean I will send money back to me). Other 9 people vote me, and, in total, I have 1 SBD. It si made of:
10 cents allocated by me from the reward pool
90 cents from other voters, which in turn is made of 45 cents from the reward pool, and 45 cents from each voter account.
A downvoter comes, downvotes, so the 1 SBD is sent back to the reward pool. The downvoter also pays 1 SBD in penalties, which are allocated to all voters, proportionally: 10 voters means 10 cents each voter, including me.
So I don't earn 1 SBD, I earn, in this case, 10 cents, which comes from the downvoter. And that's only because I voted for myself. If I didn't vote for myself, I would earn nothing, as the result of the downvote.
We can discuss this topic, of voting for yourself, in more detail, if you want, and see what happens, for instance, if I'm simply not allowed to vote for myself (or I can vote, but the vote won't produce financial results, and it won't participate in the redistribution of the downvoter penalty).
That's a different use case, you're right. If there's only one voter, me, then allocating from the reward pool would be abusive. If we simply don't allow reward pool allocations for self-voting, that can be circumvented.
// Edit:
If I make 10 accounts and use them to vote my post, they will eventually run out of Steem, because each vote requires Steem, as opposed to how things are now.
The amount of STEEM that an account holds won't decrease, so no risk. They won't run out if planned well, for example vote for each other so everyone's balance won't change at all. If the voting will turn STEEM into SP, then power down accordingly.
By the way I'm a bit surprised whether you're a developer. You need to think about all possibilities in advance, and solutions, and new possibilities and new solutions and etc.
There's a bias towards grouping power to a single account, so, in theory, that should drive users to maintain at least one big account that will "herd" all the others. But what you pointed out, the "sock-puppets problem", really creates a few interesting cases, I will start thinking at them.
But even in this case, having skin in the game still has a few benefits, like doubling the size of the reward pool and increasing the demand for Steem/Steem Power which are not present in any other alternative voting proposal I saw so far. Wether or not that's a good thing, well, I think it is, but I may be wrong.
As for your last comment, thank you, I guess I'm not really a developer so I think it's better to stop making proposals for the Steemit platform, as it looks I'm not qualified. Which is exactly what I'm going to do :)
If it's easy to be gamed then the greedy ones will try to game it, even the big ones. Then the honest ones will leave. To me this is a major flaw. I could be wrong though.
I was not asking you to stop making proposals, but hope that we can come with better proposals / solutions. Brainstorming is good. When an issue is identified in a proposal, we evaluate its importance, if it's a minor one we may ignore it, if it's a big one we try to solve it, if it's hard to solve, we go on looking for other solutions.
I also like to brainstorm and I don't think I have all the answers, that's why I put the proposal up for review, to get feedback. I don't see any brainstorming in this paragraph, though:
By the way I'm a bit surprised whether you're a developer. You need to think about all possibilities in advance, and solutions, and new possibilities and new solutions and etc.
Anyway, moving forward, there may be other places where I can contribute, who knows...
Then I don't think it's a good idea.
If you vote yourself, you don't take money from your own pocket, that's true. Your sum is zero. But you still take out from the reward pool, proportionally. If somebody downvotes you, that amount, from the reward pool, is sent back to the reward pool, and the downvoter pays a CBP, which is redistributed to all the voters, proportionally.
Ex: I vote and allocate 10 cents (I don't take out other 10 cents from my own account because it will mean I will send money back to me). Other 9 people vote me, and, in total, I have 1 SBD. It si made of:
A downvoter comes, downvotes, so the 1 SBD is sent back to the reward pool. The downvoter also pays 1 SBD in penalties, which are allocated to all voters, proportionally: 10 voters means 10 cents each voter, including me.
So I don't earn 1 SBD, I earn, in this case, 10 cents, which comes from the downvoter. And that's only because I voted for myself. If I didn't vote for myself, I would earn nothing, as the result of the downvote.
We can discuss this topic, of voting for yourself, in more detail, if you want, and see what happens, for instance, if I'm simply not allowed to vote for myself (or I can vote, but the vote won't produce financial results, and it won't participate in the redistribution of the downvoter penalty).
It's clearer now?
It seems that you still haven't get the point. I'm talking about potential abusing. What if my post is just rubbish, and only I upvoted it?
//Edit:
If I'm not allowed to vote for myself, I have suck puppets that I can vote for.
That's a different use case, you're right. If there's only one voter, me, then allocating from the reward pool would be abusive. If we simply don't allow reward pool allocations for self-voting, that can be circumvented.
// Edit:
If I make 10 accounts and use them to vote my post, they will eventually run out of Steem, because each vote requires Steem, as opposed to how things are now.
The amount of STEEM that an account holds won't decrease, so no risk. They won't run out if planned well, for example vote for each other so everyone's balance won't change at all. If the voting will turn STEEM into SP, then power down accordingly.
By the way I'm a bit surprised whether you're a developer. You need to think about all possibilities in advance, and solutions, and new possibilities and new solutions and etc.
There's a bias towards grouping power to a single account, so, in theory, that should drive users to maintain at least one big account that will "herd" all the others. But what you pointed out, the "sock-puppets problem", really creates a few interesting cases, I will start thinking at them.
But even in this case, having skin in the game still has a few benefits, like doubling the size of the reward pool and increasing the demand for Steem/Steem Power which are not present in any other alternative voting proposal I saw so far. Wether or not that's a good thing, well, I think it is, but I may be wrong.
As for your last comment, thank you, I guess I'm not really a developer so I think it's better to stop making proposals for the Steemit platform, as it looks I'm not qualified. Which is exactly what I'm going to do :)
Cheers!
If it's easy to be gamed then the greedy ones will try to game it, even the big ones. Then the honest ones will leave. To me this is a major flaw. I could be wrong though.
I was not asking you to stop making proposals, but hope that we can come with better proposals / solutions. Brainstorming is good. When an issue is identified in a proposal, we evaluate its importance, if it's a minor one we may ignore it, if it's a big one we try to solve it, if it's hard to solve, we go on looking for other solutions.
Thanks for the efforts anyway.
I also like to brainstorm and I don't think I have all the answers, that's why I put the proposal up for review, to get feedback. I don't see any brainstorming in this paragraph, though:
Anyway, moving forward, there may be other places where I can contribute, who knows...
Sorry I was emotional.