You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: About the Whole Self-Upvoting Debate-- Let's Examine the BIGGER Perspective!
Sadly, there's no way to regulate sincerity. The people who post spammy comments just to upvote themselves are not sincere at all, but motivated purely for monetary gain. Then there are brilliant and sincere comments that offer great insight into something and so often they're worth $0.00.
I have to remind myself that monetary gain is not really the point of Steemit, but meeting interesting people, following good content, and having good conversations. The monetary reward should come naturally from good content and interactions.
@denmarkguy, excellent article. Thank you.
Quick question, what do you think of services like minnowbooster, or randowhale? Do you believe that this damages the lasting power of Steemit?
Thanks @ironshield, appreciate the kinds words and feedback!
Just based on personal observation, there seems to be two dominant schools of thought on Steemit:
Steemit is a social blogging/content site that happens to reward contributors for their activity. As best I can tell, that's the more idealistic approach which I also gleaned as forming the heart of the original Steemit White Paper, as well as Dan & Ned's vision of this being the game changer of social content sites.
Steemit is purely a "make money online" site, and people are within their right to use "whatever means" to extract as much bounty as possible, within the limitations of what the code allows. Content doesn't really matter, except as a vehicle to activate the "cash dispenser."
These two will tend to conflict because one focuses on long term community building... while the other focuses on immediate rewards. In addition, under the first paradigm, the reward flows naturally as the consequence of an action we take; under the latter, the "action" is dictated by the reward.
With respect to upvoting services... I see them as problematic in the sense that "automated" rewards are taking away from "organically awarded" rewards, but that's perhaps a fairly minor issue. The greater issue is the fact that they mostly amount to so much "churning;" that is, people are paying $2.00 to earn $2.00 in most cases... so the only person who substantially benefits in the long run is the "seller" of the upvote... who already has a ton of voting power.
I should remember that if the reward comes naturally from the action, rather than the action dictated by the reward, then I am lending to the longevity of Steemit and promoting the platform. I really hope it has staying power. It would be sad to see it become only a cash dispenser.
Thank you for your insightful response. Steem on! @ironshield