RE: The Case Against Unmonitored, Automated Voting
Oh, I like that idea. "These 5 people vote the way I do. If 2 or more vote on something, give it my vote as well." The weakness there (from a game theory perspective) is when everyone the other accounts are just doing follow voting so they vote when one account votes and then your accounts sees the 2 or more votes it wants to see.
The bank analogy loses me a bit because "poor grammer" on a social media platform that is trying to be like Medium as far as high quality, long-form content is really important to avoid promoting. Same might be said for nice looking, but from the opposite angle. I don't think the whales are control freaks, but I do see how much the community bashes on them if they vote for something which others (subjectively) don't think has value. People get mad either way. "What did they vote on that trash!" or "Why can't they loosen up and vote for more diverse content, even stuff they don't personally love?"
If Steemit is not just some blogging platform, but rather a trojan horse for a new economic system based on SBD, as it was specified here https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/steemit-s-evil-plan-for-cryptocurrency-world-domination, then
I'm afraid we have to go along with Bob's poor grammar and questionable taste as long as he is willing to accept SBD in bar he is running )
Oh, for sure, but in that case we'd be upvoting his bar selection we can purchase, not his grammar. :)
And yes, I love that post and think about it / reference it often. It's one of the main reasons I think Steemit will be such a game-changer, introducing cryptocurrency to new people like @corinnestokes (which I blogged about before).