Why is it possible to upvote your own post and comments?
If Steemit has an Achilles heal, it is that you can upvote your own post and comments. This is a fatal flaw that will exterminate all sense of community and value as a forum. What incentive do dolphins and whales have to not just keep sticking in their hands into the cookie jar(reward pool)? If Steemians truly care about the long term health of this place, this must be abolished. You can not 'reward' people in 'power' thousands of dollars a week each for UPVOTING THEIR OWN POSTS!!! That turns a business into a 'scheme' and if things do not change I would expect negative consequences in terms of growth and sustainability.
You haven't understood it properly. The whales have every good reason to support good quality content and no financial incentive to support bad content because it damages the integrity of steemit as a whole.
It's their voting power that allows them to keep the balance and there would be no incentive for them to keep their money in steem power if it didn't allow them to promote content they felt was good.
Also if they've put a lot of money into steem power, therefore maintaining and supporting the whole community, then why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to utilise their power to promote any content they choose, including their own?
It's designed to reward those who take the time and effort to invest properly in the platform, either people who have no money to start and take a lot of time and effort to research and write and make good content, or people who do have money and their choice of contribution is to support whomever they want to.
This is a young system and may not be perfect and it's evolving but it is a hell of a lot better than anything else out there, and it is the only platform that is actually paying people a reward for their work creating content or curating it.
Steemit is fine. Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed.
Of course people should be able to upvote OTHER people's content, but to be able to upvote your own posts(which I could possibly get on board with) or your own comments only for pure and immediate financial gain desensitizing every positive aspect you have with this community. Anyone disputing this, is gaming the system, clicking their own comments for thousands of dollars, all coming out of the pool to make this place grow and thrive.
Sorry if I came across as a bit harsh.
Your point is really valid and it is the big concern that Steemit can stay a force for good and focused on great content. So you are right to question it, you should question everything. My personal view is that it's working and there is a benign balance to the Steemit ecology.
I've only seen pretty good content so far, and I've seen quite a few posts in the last nine days that could just have disappeared and instead got upvoted by larger forces. Equally probably a lot of even better posts disappeared amongst everything else. However in the wider scheme of things in the last ten days I've read more well researched and interesting content on Steemit than I ever came across on my other social media platforms.
If the fact exists that the balance of content is good, then, for me at least, that tells me that it's a good system. I don't think it's naive to believe in good where you see good actually happening.
So I'm not personally seeing evidence of Steemit being gamed. There's all sorts of content appearing in the trending page from authors / content creators who are from all parts of the steemit eco-system. However it is absolutely right to also question it as you've done, and if people don't question all aspects there will be no way of it staying pure as it develops further.
I appreciate you understanding my questions. I do think the platform is interesting and def has huge potential. I also understand things seem to be okay, but that also means, possibly, that they could be tweaked to be even better, allowing for even more quality of content. I do like the positivity on steemit, that is unique!
I actually really agree with you on this. I think the strongest systems are the ones that have the best real world testing and can then adapt and use all the lessons learned to make it better.
I've been really interested in how you could use Steemit to create an infrastructure for film-makers to be able to self fund and self distribute their films without having to go to Distributors. So I have a really specific angle of what I'd like to see it be able to do. It doesn't currently quite fit the needs of film-makers but there are already some film-makers trying to use it in different ways to suit their needs ( check out @steemfilm ) and it doesn't take long after that if enough people use the system in different ways for the developers hopefully to see the need to then build the features in.
If you are interested I wrote a really detailed article on what I'd like to see happen for film makers which is about Steemit becoming a new type of distribution platform where the production of the film itself becomes the distribution model so that the Distributor (think large Hollywood studios with vested interests) are taken out of the equation. It's too detailed to explain here but if you want to take a look at the article I want people to pull the idea apart and tell me what they see is wrong with it.
https://steemit.com/film/@angusg/a-new-way-to-fund-feature-films-based-on-the-steemit-blockchain
I upvote my own votes and comments. I absolutely disagree that it is a fatal flaw. It is a way for me to decide to hold my steem power instead of sell it.
I respect your opinion and your right to say it, but I completely disagree. I do it all of the time, I also read and engage on the site, upvote others, promote others, etc.
I've been thinking about this a lot. And since I'm new, I'm still trying to figure out the best strategy for me. Seems like there are two conflicting schools of thought on this matter that essentially go as follows: yes, do it because it is allowed and ethical; and no, don't do it because it is unethical and selfish. The "don't do it" crowd always seems to be comprised of newbies.
But I think you're right, @whatsup - it seems like if you're also engaging with the rest of the platform, then there's nothing wrong with voting for yourself as well. It's your steem power and you can use it as you like, since there's no rule against self-votes. What matters is creating value, and that happens through several ways on this platform.
I just spent a sbd to promote a post, thinking it would land me a spot in the promoted section, which I then saw it translated into an upvote from the 'promoted' bot - so it looks like it was almost essentially the same thing as an upvote, except I spent sbd instead of steem power. I'm choosing to thank myself for the learning experience instead of kicking myself for spending money.
My school of thought is simply, why is it even possible?
Why is it possible to like your or reshare your own posts on other social networks? All that is different about Steemit is that actions on the network cost energy for the user, so there's an in-built rate-limiting mechanism. How that energy is used is up to the users? If you want to turn that money into energy, you can, but you don't have to. I think you're getting distracted by the dollar sign next to the upvote total. My recommendation is to focus on creating great content that people will want to upvote and share. Then you don't have to worry about how people are spending their Steem power because some of it is going to you.
I do not see how comparing other sites is relevant when other sites do not use a business model remotely close.
I am new to the platform, I have dove in head first adding content I feel would be valuable. I bought some steem to understand how this blockchain works. To see if this project is something I want to be a part of and something I believe has true opportunity to succeed. The reason I bring this up is not because I don't think it is fair, my point is meant to be ultimately the kind of content that will be created and the collaboration possibilities could be so much better if people did not even have the option for voting for themselves. Bringing more value longer term then could be imagined.
Steemit is a response to the business models of legacy social networks, so I think the comparison is entirely appropriate.
Your question is good one, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be asking it. And it's really great you're so enthusiastic about the platform. It's a really positive community to be a part of, and I think that's why we're all here - it's something different with a lot of potential. I think everyone's message though is that you've only been on a couple of weeks. Give it time, feel it out, figure out what works for you. How you vote is entirely up to you.
And with that, I just upvoted your sunset photography because it's really good. It's the kind of content I think builds value on this platform, and I hope to see more of it on here. Not seeing a resteem option, though, otherwise I'd share them to my feed as well. I'm also upvoting your post since I appreciate the discussion it's generated, so thank you. :)
Thank you. Imagine how much more powerful this platform could be if you could only give your votes. The focus would be much more on quality content creation. And for those with lots of Steem who do not want to create content, there are other ways they can invest their Steem in the platform, and those options would become equally as profitable as it is now for upvoting oneself. But with such a better focus on quality of content and the core value of positivity.
While I do think we have a major issue with quality content, I actually think it is for different reasons.
There are many accounts that do not log in, do not read, do not post, they just bot vote. (it is their stake, so I am okay with that)
I think the lack of meaningful interaction like what is taking place on this post is the reason the quality is dropping. Neither of us can prove it so thanks for an interesting conversation and for contributing to meaningful engagement.
I don't abuse it and I also get annoyed at people who do, but in the end it is up to each stake holder how to use their stake.
Part of the reason to invest and hold investments is the ability to create some ROI. It is an interesting discussion so thanks for your thoughtful answer.
Are there not ways to invest in content creators on Steemit? And those avenues would increase in profitability if votes could only be given, correct?
Most of the people that I see speaking out against this are usually new and generally don't know how the system works. I would suggest reading the whitepaper to get a better grasp on how Steemit truly works. A lot of people think self-voting is stealing money from the Steemit community.
Another common disparity that I see is how people complain about this fact, but don't care that you can literally buy influence. Is that any more ethical? The designers and developers were smart. They knew these things would happen.
My stats as of this comment:
STEEM Power: 240.6 + 27.6 (delegated)
VESTs: 495,602
My stats as of this reply:
STEEM Power: 451.99 + 27.6 (delegated)
VESTs: 930,985
Hey look! I'm more powerful! Why should I be more powerful since I didn't add value?
The answer:
I did add value. I'm sure there are a couple of ways I've added value, but the most obvious one is this: I just injected money into the system. Someone, somewhere was able to take the STEEM they powered down and convert it into Bitcoin which they can then convert into USD/GBP/EUR all because I wanted to demonstrate that even something that doesn't seem valuable, is valuable.
No worries. You'll get used to it and it won't bother you :). Now, I'm going to upvote your post and all the comments on it with my new found power. 😎
I understand the value, but your "power" should be used on everything else except you. Use it to make friends and followers, to build the platform, to increase the value of your investment. If people lose faith in the project because power is linear and mostly being used to 'take' from the platform, the value of STEEM will plummet. Right?
Why should it be used on anything at all? One of the things that you can also do use your power to flag posts you think violate community standards. I did that on a post I resteemed after I realized it (allegedly) committed copyright infringement: https://steemit.com/photography/@olivia0001/humming-bird-in-rain#@joshpeterson/re-olivia0001-humming-bird-in-rain-20170905t233025847z
If you click through the link, you'll see that I also commented to make my case as to why I flagged the post so someone looking through the blockchain at my user history can see it wasn't a frivolous action.
If you're worried about spammers "scamming" the platform, again, the rate limiting mechanism of Steemit and Steem already account for that. Voting and posting power is limited per day. And because of the ability to flag content, the community is self-policing.
Kind of to reiterate @kxp's suggestion: did you read the whitepaper? I think that will help answer a lot of your questions.
Also, what brought you to Steemit? Happy to have you here. :)
Hey @gank!
Originally, I was writing a book of a response, but I decided to turn it into a post instead. Cheers, and great job with the excellent conversation in this post! :)
Steemit Self-Voting: What Is Your Opinion On It?
what is keeping you from putting money into the steemit ecosystem?
I bought 80 Steem and put it on the platform with plans to put a lot more over time if I believe in the future of Steem.