You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What NEEDS to change NOW in order for Steemit to Survive. (Partial Payout Declined Self-Voting)
we already analyzed the self-voting statstics and if I remember it correctly self-voting only takes out less than 7% of the reward pool.
so that self-voting propanganda is total nonsense
I guess most of my thoughts and responses have been less about the "self-voting propanganda" where there is no reward pool left due to self votes, which isn't really what I wanted to force as the subject. It's true that roughly 7% of the reward pool is going to self votes as some have analyzed. Some of that 7% may be in the form of substantial sized up vote from very large accounts (which is also a thought) which is really what most are upset about. Posts that seem to have little substantial value or be considered quality content, self-voted to $400, and instantly trending and therefor promoting the other recent compliant: others just voting for curation reasons...
I like your idea more and more of really have a partial payout decline self-vote, My overall goal isn't really to take money away from users and stop people from gaining profits but more trying to get people be apart of the community and give back. As some have pointed out there is a lot of account not utilizing their Voting Power for others at all and just voting for their own content, I have fallen into this personally with my votes being all manual right now (one positive part of voting bots) arguments can always be made both directions it seems.
Ok before I go writing an entire post here within a comment what I'm saying is that part of the 7% which is probably a pretty big number still (have to go searching for this value) unless you know it? that some of this given back to the reward pool or directed elsewhere towards other good content wouldn't DOOM the platform and I feel could create a better economic environment.